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

[bars91 956]

3 hours ago, x3kj said:

what you are basically asking for is a "driver turret" - so that the driver/pilot can operate and fire a turret but at the same time controll the vehicle.

 

I actually wouldn't mind such option, since waay back in OFP you could create ambient vehicular combat w. less AI in the field.

[x3kj 1247]

Just now, bars91 said:

 

I actually wouldn't mind such option, since waay back in OFP you could create ambient vehicular combat w. less AI in the field.

i didnt mean it to be judgemental - just stating what it essentially boils down to. It would enable open up many possibilities if driverturrets would be possible in the engine.

[bars91 956]

46 minutes ago, x3kj said:

i didnt mean it to be judgemental - just stating what it essentially boils down to. It would enable open up many possibilities if driverturrets would be possible in the engine.

 

Yes it would - from simple "Battlefield"-like more casual "for-fun" scenarios to creating more epic scale actual ambient combat, etc etc... options are good all-round in my books.

 

P.S. just in case: i'm hardcore realism fanboy, but also realize that world is not black\white 

[pipewr3nch 71]

Excuse me as I am not sure where to post this. Is there a chance that you will add a proper towing feature for both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircrafts? I know there are addons which handle this, but I would really love to see this feature as a part of the vanilla game.

[snoops_213 74]

On 07/03/2017 at 8:53 PM, oukej said:

It shouldn't be. Is some vehicle configured this way?

 

None are co configured that way. After a couple of test turns out radar is not limited to VD, it was all in my head and where i had placed aa.

 I did notice when in planes if i use the laser spotter and target it i get extended info about it with the radar on. Shouldn't this info be tied to the optical sensor? Meaning the extra info from radar being switched on should come up when locked by the tgt pod not the radar.

As for aircraft vs aa imbalance extending the range of the vehicle sams and taking away the ability to lock rwr without an Arm ( i know i keep harping on about it) would be a good start. At the moment even without taking into account rwr lock ability aa is useless over 5km. I'd like to see the sams have the  same range of the radar. Maybe even a dual seeker so if radar is on longer range but becomes a bigger target  and ir tracking so they can hide but have a shorter range. 

[woore 10]

Would be wonderful, along with RadarTargetSize config param to have an ability to set its increase due to loadout changes. That would allow to correctly simulate radar cross-section increase with weapons mounted externally, like with F-35, F-22, T-50 and so on. The issue is (and I'm sure the devs understand it) that creating a public interface to change the RadarTargetSize in sqf would lead to a security breach. There are 2 possibilities I see:

Poss. 1:

- configure RadarTargetSize for magazines classes (we have stealthy gun pods and SNIPER pods, for example) and adding MagazinesStealthThreshold (for example) to set the minimum number of added magazines, from which their  RadarTargetSize to be added to the vehicle RadarTargetSize with some coefficient. This way, since the magazines are added in magazines[] array sequentually, the first N magazines[] indexes have to be mapped to the internal slots and MagazinesRadarTargetSizeThreshold set to N to simulate the internal weapon mount.

 

Poss 2:

- add bool flag AllowsInternalMounts, a field MagazinesRadarTargetSize to the vehicle config file, and an AddMagazinesInternal script command, which does the following: if (AllowsInternalMounts) { add magazines; }. Add into AddMagazines/AddMagazine commands procedure: RadarTargetSize += magazines.Length * MagazinesRadarTargetSize.

This way you'll get:

    a) an increase of RadarTargetSize when adding the weapons by AddWeapons command, if the vehicle has external mounts and MagazinesRadarTargetSize, while leaving it unchanged when it doesn't;

    b) a backward compatibility for the old vehicles - you'll simply have to set MagazinesRadarTargetSize = 0 and AllowsInternalMounts = false for the most of the vehicles;

    c) a more versatile system than Poss. 1;

    d) it won't break a ton of already written in SQF with AddMagazines, it won't create a leak when added magazines don't increase your RadarTargetSize when they should, it won't require magazines config changes;

 

I realize that it's a mess and still rigid in some way, but that'd allow far more precise simulation of the stealth aircrafts which has external weapon stations.

Edited March 15, 2017 by woore
grammar

[oukej 2910]

9 hours ago, woore said:

Would be wonderful, along with RadarTargetSize config param to have an ability to set its increase due to loadout changes.

It was on our list but unfortunately we had to cut it. Sorry about that.

[five_seven5-7 56]

Why TGP view have dirty screen while flying? If so, also the tank optics should be too...

[woore 10]

18 hours ago, oukej said:

It was on our list but unfortunately we had to cut it. Sorry about that.

 

Ah, ok then) Could I ask why? The lack of time, too much efforts for the effect just few people would notice? Too much of a work to make it consistent?

What ideas did we have for it? Asking just out of common interest)

[dragon01 902]

Also, is there any chance it'll get revisited post-Jets DLC release?

[woore 10]

28 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Also, is there any chance it'll get revisited post-Jets DLC release?

 

From my dev experience it's always 50/50: either will get revisited or not :-P

So there is a hope)

[oukej 2910]

 

39 minutes ago, woore said:

Could I ask why?

Just prioritization. There are some critical issues that need to be solved for the base game, there are things to do for Tanks DLC, etc. :)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

3 hours ago, five_seven5-7 said:

Why TGP view have dirty screen while flying? If so, also the tank optics should be too...

I would hope an advanced jets TGP does NOT have dirt on it's screen, most air forces wouldn't even let you take off like that, there's about a gazillion checks and run throughs pilots go through before they even hop in the hot seat. I reckon cleaning their instruments or making darn sure there's not a bit of anything hindering their equipment. Tanks are a whole different ball game though.

[Strike_NOR 898]

1 hour ago, woore said:

 

Could I ask why?

Now I am just going to make a general assumption here, but the sensor overhaul is exactly that, an overhaul. It's a major rework of a core game mechanic that tampers with all available vehicles and sensors. Suddenly every vehicle and weapon is getting a bunch of new parameters and variables that all need balance and tuning. 

 

Additionally, remember what this does to the modding community. All addons and mods, old, ongoing and new, are going to be hit by the changes to sensors. This essentially requires addon-makers to revisit and reconfigure their addons in order to work properly with the new sensors.

 

If this happens once a year or so, it is only a little tedious. BIS have to make a decision at some point that they want to add "A and B, but not C D and E", because while adding C, D and E may give tons of more complexity and realism, it may very well cost too much time and effort and discourage addon makers from updating their mods. Since ARMA 3 has a large modding community that helps keep the franchise afloat, it would be risky to "annoy" the addon makers with new features that constantly "break" (outdate) their addons.

 

 

What I strongly suggest is that we let BIS work on the sensor suite, and help them test the heck out of it. Because only then can we truly help the devs discover stuff such as bugs, imbalance, practical aspects, user-interface improvement potential or even game-breaking elements. 

 

I personally thought magic radar was going to die together with ARMA 3, but it is a welcome surprise to me that they are redoing such a major component of the game, this late into post-release development.

[Strike_NOR 898]

5 minutes ago, darksidesixofficial said:

I would hope an advanced jets TGP does NOT have dirt on it's screen, most air forces wouldn't even let you take off like that, there's about a gazillion checks and run throughs pilots go through before they even hop in the hot seat. I reckon cleaning their instruments or making darn sure there's not a bit of anything hindering their equipment. Tanks are a whole different ball game though.

Speaking from actual experience. Pilot's don't clean shit, in fact, they are the reason the jets are dirty all the time ;) they only like to point it out to you :) 

 

On a more serious note - We keep the glass-covers clean at all times to improve TGP performance. This also means cleaning the cockpit MFD's, which also tend to get dirty after a while. 

 

For ARMA I don't see the purpose of having simulated grime and dirt on the TGP display.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

Speaking from actual experience. Pilot's don't clean shit, in fact, they are the reason the jets are dirty all the time ;) they only like to point it out to you :) 

 

On a more serious note - We keep the glass-covers clean at all times to improve TGP performance. This also means cleaning the cockpit MFD's, which also tend to get dirty after a while. 

 

For ARMA I don't see the purpose of having simulated grime and dirt on the TGP display.

I hear ya, hahaha, but in the Armaverse, we're talking about stealth A-10s here. I reckon anything involving stealth requires the absolute best pilot/crew to maintain IRL, I believe only the best get to fly things like the F-22, but in regards to attack aircraft where a TGP would be essential... I would want that screen beyond spotless for best mission success.

[woore 10]

6 hours ago, oukej said:

 

Just prioritization. There are some critical issues that need to be solved for the base game, there are things to do for Tanks DLC, etc. :)

 

Oukej, is that possible to provide some safe API to change RadarTargetSize runtime? Probably serverside-only command? Well, the runtime changes of config params should be synched with server anyway, otherwise you'll still have the same value for the rest of the clients.

[oukej 2910]

15 hours ago, woore said:

change RadarTargetSize runtime

The realtime update of the property itself is what's not so simple :) If we did it, scripts, connecting it to loadouts, bay door anims., etc. would then be the more trivial part.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Please give the CMLauncher a Semi-Fire mode. Burst by default, AI use burst and dont change (unless interested in making the Ai's use of CMLauncher more interesting) . Players can switch between Burst and Semi.

[woore 10]

On 22.03.2017 at 4:23 PM, darksidesixofficial said:

Please give the CMLauncher a Semi-Fire mode. Burst by default, AI use burst and dont change (unless interested in making the Ai's use of CMLauncher more interesting) . Players can switch between Burst and Semi.

 

Thing is, IRL the flare launcher was stripped of single-fire mode for CAS planes like A-10 and Su-25 because it was too ineffective, but preferred by the pilots) It would be closer to reality to implement timer programs like "series of 16, 2 minutes". Peral did that on his A-10C as I recall.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I agree, but then you'd have to do it for all aircraft, when no all aircraft are CAS. Thus having the two modes, single and maybe extend the time of the original burst would do good justice. This way, you can single dump as many flares as you want, while having the ability to chose to do a longer steady burst. That's also how it is in DCS aswell.

[suddenlymoose 15]

On 2/13/2017 at 11:34 PM, oukej said:

@snoops_213@chortles - forgot to mention - good job on monitoring the wiki ;)

Few packets back the HLAD-link (Highly Lethal Automatic Data Link, STARMAG 5302) got silently uplinked to Dev-Branch.
The sharing is performed through Side's "center" and individual vehicles can be configured to share their target data, share their own position and/or receive target data from the center.
Datalinked targets use hollow symbols.

You can try the datalink with Drones (transmit only) and VTOLs (transmit & receive). You can also use script commands for testing it out.

As always - wip, may not be final, subject to possible naming and functionality changes. Give us your feedback!

 

Really liking new sensors system, and I have been testing the datalink functionality:

 

Vehicle A: Has reportRemoteTargets set.
Vehicle B: Has receiveRemoteTargets set.
Vehicle C: Is in sensor range of A and not in line of sight from B.

 

Vehicle A senses C and reports it to B, resulting in radar of vehicle B showing vehicle C (does not do this without data from A).

 

Is there a way to lock and fire on C from B, using the target information from A? I did some experimentation, but could not target C from B in any way.

[chortles 263]

1 hour ago, suddenlymoose said:

Vehicle A senses C and reports it to B, resulting in radar of vehicle B showing vehicle C (does not do this without data from A).

 

Is there a way to lock and fire on C from B, using the target information from A? I did some experimentation, but could not target C from B in any way.

Part of the issue is that the 'lock target' capability is set in the vehicle weapon's ammo config and to the best of my knowledge that is not affected in real-time by a datalink, so at last check datalinks were for situational awareness.

[dragon01 902]

This is generally realistic, too. BIS said that they don't have time to implement semi-automatic homing, which is effectively the missile tracking the target through datalink as opposed to onboard sensors. Thus, all missiles in game have to acquire and lock target with their own sensors in order to track properly. I hope missile datalink would eventually come into picture, but it probably won't be at Jets DLC release.

[Strike_NOR 898]

If BIS decide to do datalink guidance or lock-on datalink, it would actually open to door for how most modern SAM systems work too. A dedicated command vehicle/unit with radar for search and/or track, and the other launch-vehicles just use the shared datalink from the command vehicle to select targets and fire. This way, you would only see one active radar on your radar warning display, while there could theoretically be an infinite amount of launchers linked to that one radar source :)

 

It would also allow for advanced weapons to do indirect fire, where you can launch weapons vertically first to clear terrain (or get out of a forest) then shift to horizontal flight towards the target.

 

Either way, they have stated already that semi-active guidance won't make it for Jets DLC, so maybe the future :)