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

[xxgetbuck123 945]

@oukej Will your aircraft/vehicle be harder to detect if you turn the radar off? As a means of somewhat being a little more stealthy but obviously can't detect much. 

[nova_man1 10]

IM ABSOLUTELY IN LOVE

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

5 hours ago, kilrbe3 said:

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. 

 

 

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.

 

I take it as a "don't hold your breath" statement.

[ParaMedic1981 0]

Is there any Chance to get a Laser-Designator on TGP in Planes?

[oukej 2910]

sure thing

[Al3x221 0]

This is pretty exciting, thank you so much for those additions :)

 

I would like to mention another element of weapon deployment that drives me crazy:

As it stands currently, when you fire say an ATGM missile, the (smoke) countermeasures in vehicles won't only obstruct the view and break the lock, instead they magically force the missiles to drive into the ground short of the target. I'm no missile expert, yet it seems to me that in reality if a guided missile were to lose it's lock (embedded or remote), it should really be tracking to the target's last known position, not changing it's course after the lock was lost. In the current iteration, this is not only true for actual locks, but furthermore for laser (/radio (/wire?)) guided projectiles.

 

Imho the changes seem to be considerably nerfing air units as opposed to ground. Please consider revisiting these inconsistencies in how missiles behave. This also relates to the current employment of countermeasures, which in practice does not (yet) differentiate between IR/radar.

 

Thanks again and i wish you all some splendid holidays.

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Al3x221

[chortles 263]

More generally speaking, besides the IR/radar differentiation what other positive changes can we expect to countermeasures? The issues with them (particularly in how 'meta-knowledge' about their current behavior affects players' decisions) have been recounted by others before...

[dragon01 902]

7 hours ago, Al3x221 said:

I would like to mention another element of weapon deployment that drives me crazy:

As it stands currently, when you fire say an ATGM missile, the (smoke) countermeasures in vehicles won't only obstruct the view and break the lock, instead they magically force the missiles to drive into the ground short of the target. I'm no missile expert, yet it seems to me that in reality if a guided missile were to lose it's lock (embedded or remote), it should really be tracking to the target's last known position, not changing it's course after the lock was lost.

This is true for CLOS missiles guided by an actual person, but hiding behind smoke like that will cause IR-guided missiles to lose target completely (presenting the seeker with a pretty much uniform cloud of smoke), possibly causing them to maneuver randomly due to slight variations in the smoke pattern. The seeker is designed to work in a situation where it has clear IR contrast. In Vietnam, early Mavericks would often guide onto a tank, then pull aside at the last moment to hit a "tactical bush", as those things were called. :) As the missile closed onto the tank, it took up a larger part of the camera FOV , which lowered the contrast in the target area, eventually making the missile look for contrast elsewhere. That was a visual contrast seeker, but smoking out an IR seeker will produce a similar result, since they work on the same principle, only in a different spectrum.

[eriktrak 76]

Cannot turn on radar (CTRL+R) even after keyboard binding is set to default Apex.

 

In keyboard settings shows 'MISSING STRING...' but it is true for switching display and that is working.

 

Idea?

[oukej 2910]

12 minutes ago, eriktrak said:

Cannot turn on radar (CTRL+R) even after keyboard binding is set to default Apex.

 

In keyboard settings shows 'MISSING STRING...' but it is true for switching display and that is working.

 

Idea?

What vehicle have u been trying? Currently the radar is available on Cheetah, Tigris, Blackfoot, Kajman and Buzzard AA.

[eriktrak 76]

You got the point!.Tested with Wipeout and Neophron...new sensor suite mislead me.

 

Thanks!

 

[domokun 515]

On 17/12/2016 at 5:07 PM, 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.

Yeah you missed the point. Maffa's point is that ships are more suited to Arma's relatively small maps than jets.

While I agree that the lack of amphibious troops is a big inconsistency given that most maps have a coastline and many are islands, I'd in fact argue that tanks are for more relevant given that Arma is essentially an infantry simulator with a few aircraft and ships.

So all Maffa is raising is the question of priorities, legitimately, politely and articulatedly.

[Alwarren 2765]

Geez this looks great!. Will these sensor changes work with helicopters and shoulder launchers as well? Will that mean that things like LOBL/LOAL, HARM missiles (that lock on active radar source) and top-down attacks might be a possibility?

[jone_kone 158]

 

Feedback:

 

- IR/TV sensors should have own "screen" if only possible.

- Depending on radar if possible it could sweep different sector. e.g. rotating groundradar = 360, Aircraft 180 - 90 degree sweeps etc.

- Different checkbox settings for IFF/RWR depending on how hardcore you want to play. (I understood that under the hood it is currently pretty moddable which is great).

- IR weapons should have different lock on and engagement ranges than radar based weapons. 

- Maybe as toggable feature add simple ECM that creates fake targets and lowers radar weapons hit propability.

- Remember that some communities plays with UI disengaged from airplanes so gunsights etc. are needed in HUD.

 

 

Balance:

Vehicles should benefit from hiding in forests and cities/structures.

Vehicles should have a working countermeasures and warning receivers (e.g. Laser Warning Receiver).

Missiles should have lower hit probability if countermeasures is used or weapon is deployed incorrectly.

Titan AA / Titan AA static UI should have wider FOV (for finding those pesky planes in the sky).

AA versions of suitable current groundassets.

GPS lock for smartbombs (JDAMs).

Dumb bombs as available weapon (Mk82 etc.) 

[jordonbrooker 10]

Nice work!

[chortles 263]

1 hour ago, Alwarren said:

Geez this looks great!. Will these sensor changes work with helicopters and shoulder launchers as well? Will that mean that things like LOBL/LOAL, HARM missiles (that lock on active radar source) and top-down attacks might be a possibility?

The gunships in the OP were the Blackfoot and the Kajman, unless you meant other/more specific changes...

[Alwarren 2765]

1 hour ago, chortles said:

The gunships in the OP were the Blackfoot and the Kajman, unless you meant other/more specific changes...

 

From what I gathered, the Kajman in the targetting info was the locked-on target, not the platform from which it was locked on. However, you are right, the symbol in the center is a helicopter.

 

What I would like to see is really the specialized ordnance like Hellfire lock-on modes (after launch/before launch) and High- or Low-angle attacks, HARM's (that can lock on to an active radar source), and things like the PCML/NLAW/MBT LAW's top-down attack mode.

 

I'm happy about the overhaul so far... Finally, the AI will not automatically recognize you just because you got into a civilian vehicle three kilometers away.

[twistking 204]

1 hour ago, Alwarren said:

I'm happy about the overhaul so far... Finally, the AI will not automatically recognize you just because you got into a civilian vehicle three kilometers away.

 

that is an interesting question still. how will AI react, if units of oppssition get into a vehicle of own side or a civilan vehicle.

this is also a problem for infantry units, but with the bigger ranges of vehicle sensors, the problem is more obvious for vehicles, than it is for infantry units.

[ineptaphid 6413]

Is the little aiming reticlue thing for bombs gone? That was great for actually being able to hit things..

[Sniperwolf572 758]

8 minutes ago, ineptaphid said:

Is the little aiming reticlue thing for bombs gone? That was great for actually being able to hit things..

 

I think it's in a bit of a WIP state at the moment, to integrate them into the MFD's themselves. From what I can tell, it's only available as a UI element in the targeting pod (very hard to do anyhting with it there tho).

Buzzard seems to have it implemented for the cannon in the MFD as a dashed circle, but the rest of the planes don't. For CCIP, they are still implementing the dummy approach which links the center of the MFD with the indicator that shows predicted flight path of the plane (can't recall the technical name for it).

[Alwarren 2765]

50 minutes ago, twistking said:

that is an interesting question still. how will AI react, if units of oppssition get into a vehicle of own side or a civilan vehicle.

this is also a problem for infantry units, but with the bigger ranges of vehicle sensors, the problem is more obvious for vehicles, than it is for infantry units.

 

This always bugged me. You could get into a civilian car, and the AI chopper automatically knew you are enemy, even though there was no way they could notice. I sincerely hope that is fixed.

[ineptaphid 6413]

1 hour ago, Sniperwolf572 said:

 

I think it's in a bit of a WIP state at the moment, to integrate them into the MFD's themselves. From what I can tell, it's only available as a UI element in the targeting pod (very hard to do anyhting with it there tho).

Buzzard seems to have it implemented for the cannon in the MFD as a dashed circle, but the rest of the planes don't. For CCIP, they are still implementing the dummy approach which links the center of the MFD with the indicator that shows predicted flight path of the plane (can't recall the technical name for it).

Yeah- i never really got how that works..I liked the actual cross hair added a couple of months ago. Meant i actual;ly stood a chance of hitting the right neighbourhood with my bombs :) maybe keep it as an optional thing?

[nodunit 397]

On 12/17/2016 at 3:05 PM, kilrbe3 said:

 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

 

 

 

You're only seeing the end result though and are overlooking the journey.  The system is awesome yes I'll give it that, but its very specific and to a degree limited, for one in terms of pages you need a plethora of configs and scripts which is a no no as we've heard time and time again, not to mention something to that level must be configured for every individual aircraft.  Whereas this has a legacy effect in that it can also be applied to ones in the original release.

Its fine to point at modders work as inspiration and say "Something like that" but you shouldn't expect it to be just like that...in the end modders don't have to play by the same rules, they don't have to worry about time or money as much nor do they have to play by the rules in terms of what they can do to achieve a function, and of course BI has to consider everyone when they add something, whereas a modder can get away with only considering their work.

[metalcraze 290]

Can take it a step further and depict moving air targets akin to track-while-scan radar mode in F-16 / Falcon BMS where the radar shows their general direction of movement in relation to you (helpful and realistic!) and upon locking some more info - like you already have through vehicle type, perhaps its altitude (if it's an air vehicle) etc. Knowing the altitudes of vehicles and their direction of movement will help with situational awareness on difficulties without "helpers" perhaps where you can tell your guys apart from other guys using these clues.

 

In the pic below the TWS radar mode immediately shows you general directions of all air contacts as well as altitude of each one of them.

 

 

 

...

 

And how about separating air and ground radar modes? That will declutter the new radar massively and will be very intuitive.

For example selecting an Air-to-Air weapon will switch radar into an air scan mode, while selecting an Air-to-Ground weapon will switch it into ground scan mode. No need for new keys whatsoever.

[chortles 263]

15 hours ago, domokun said:

Yeah you missed the point. Maffa's point is that ships are more suited to Arma's relatively small maps than jets.

While I agree that the lack of amphibious troops is a big inconsistency given that most maps have a coastline and many are islands, I'd in fact argue that tanks are for more relevant given that Arma is essentially an infantry simulator with a few aircraft and ships.

So all Maffa is raising is the question of priorities, legitimately, politely and articulatedly.

Considering how far back the Tanks DLC is in comparison to Jets, I can imagine that the decision -- and on the flip side the omission of a Ships DLC -- was prioritizing on the basis of time believed needed to get DLC-promoting features (since they're not behind the paywall I'm not calling them "DLC-selling") to the point of 'just gotta tweak the numbers' and on believed 'game changer' potential. We're getting a Tanks DLC but a lot further back than Jets after all...

 

Regarding 'game changer': the OP mentions the wider utility of the sensor overhaul and custom display info work beyond fixed-wing -- this includes community-made ships if used as surface or possibly even subsurface combatants -- which we can hypothetically contrast with whatever they might have thought for big ships; the only two sticking points in my mind all have to do with big ship viability for amphibious or boarding operations, namely walking-on-moving-ships and the ol' 50-60 meter single-hull-segment limit. (This may sound inconsistent with Helicopters' AFM and sling-loading but FFV was also implemented widely.)