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

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

3 hours ago, Cenwulf said:

 

Thanks for the reply, I think this would be a great addition. I did previously try to simulate this by placing an AA vehicle inside a radar dome structure, not had much success as the vehicle needs to be manned and hideObject or disableSimulation also disables radar and dlink (as it should). Enemy CAS also zero in on the vehicle almost instantly and engage and destroy it. I imagine this could be a persistent problem, even if the radar vehicle is made to be a disembodied virtual entity it would be difficult under the current system to prevent AI from attempting to engage it.

 

 

Try using setcaptive=true; on the radar vehicle and the AI will ignore it.

[CANADAVE 14]

41 minutes ago, CANADAVE said:

 

Very strange.  I was able to get the visual indicator in the wipeout at about ~2km, but no radar indicator in the F181.  I am going to try again.

 

 

 

Placed 3 mechanized platoons on the salt flats in Altis.  Set view distance and object view distance to 12KM.  Turned radar on.  Flew toward Salt Flats.  Did not get any indication of radar contacts until under 4km.  Under 4km contacts are white dots/boxes.  Also show on HUD as 'dots'.    Turned radar off and approached again. Same behavior - got  contacts on the radar display and dots on HUD under 4km.   I think these are 'visual' markers / indicators as they appear even when the radar is off.

 

Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?

 

[Cenwulf 40]

21 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

Try using setcaptive=true; on the radar vehicle and the AI will ignore it.

 

Cheers, I'm kind of embarrassed I didn't think of that.

[BadHabitz 235]

Regarding the new sensor link and the UI display, is there any way to be able to add numbers (above or below) the symbols, so when communicating with another player you can actually tell them which symbol you're talking about?

[xon2 102]

@Canadave

I think its nothing to do with the radar but those targets might be identified by your tdp when you approach them head on and the tgp is in its default position. Try it again with the tgp looking at 90/270°, then those targets should not be identified without radar on when you approach them head on.

 

[arno_junior 0]

Oh my.

 

[CANADAVE 14]

@Canadave

I think its nothing to do with the radar but those targets might be identified by your tdp when you approach them head on and the tgp is in its default position. Try it again with the tgp looking at 90/270°, then those targets should not be identified without radar on when you approach them head on.

 

 

I'll try that but any idea why radar would not pick up ground targets outside of 3km to 4km when approaching head on from 12km? I really think the symbology I am getting on the radar display inside of 4km is due to visual range identification. I get the same behavior on the Wipeout which has no radar. It seems like radar is not adding any sensing capability for ground targets beyond visual sensors. I must be doing something wrong or radar is not working for AG units. Thanks for replying.

 

BTW maybe someone has a video showing radar detection of ground units at 8 - 12km or something greater than 4km?

 

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[gatordev 214]

On 4/15/2017 at 5:51 PM, gatordev said:

That math is easy and not terribly sensitive.  1.5x the distance from the source (forgetting any ducting).  It's actually a nice idea.

 

Wow, was I typing way too fast.  I meant to say 1.5x the line of sight. 

[Warlordz 0]

I'm excited for this update. I just have a few things in mind:

 

IRST(For Russian fighters): Should be implemented so that CSAT fighters are capable of more "down-to-earth" approaches as they should be. This would give CSAT fighters (the Shikra at least... for now) an appealing stealth factor while still having effective detection. From the looks of it, all vehicles with radar will have the ability to mimic IRST by turning off their radars and looking for heat signals. The Shikra's radar should have a larger detection range for infrared signals... to simulate differences in technology!

 

Modifiable radar ranges: This annoyed me the most. The F-14 Tomcat(mod) was absolutely terrible when it came to taking down targets at long range... because it couldn't search for them at long range! I'm not into the modding biz yet, so I don't know if there is a way to bypass the range of "Ex-Long"(If you know please tell me) 

Regardless, radars shouldn't differ in just efficiency, but in range as well. I want to be able to prepare to fire a missile at a Buzzard  before it even comes into infrared range of my FA-181.  Sadly, Bohemia will need to mop up some code to make radars more "wonky" and inefficient so they have a sense of diversity, but that's alright. 

 

A fair ground radar...finding infantry: This bit concerned me. It sounds like all vehicles get a heartbeat sensor from Call of Duty and can just flop around looking for the nervous ants hiding from fate.

Hopefully, this is one of the most ineffective radars to be implemented. Maybe if the soldier just got shot... Or they just finished running for a mile and need a breather... Eh I don't know how that would work. It's 2035 though. "Tracking" heat signals probably exists by then... or just in game?

 

A fair ground radar... for helicopters: This sensor sounds so dangerous that an AH-64 Apache could easily sit behind a hill and take down a T-100 (which would be much harder but these tanks are seriously SERIOUSLY naked to the bone with features...).

Let's not forget about SPAA weaponry. I've never seen a Pawnee last a few minutes around enemies... but it may just have a chance now. I find that... displeasing honestly.

The "fire over Valhalla" feature was fine in Arma 2 but... that FELT more realistic... Arma 3 takes place from a questionable date (2035) with all factions getting the weakest amount of bare-bones content I have ever seen. It's 2035!!

The helicopter radars should really only detect targets that can be seen by the crew inside (with a range boost to be fair A.K.A. "BVR") to prevent ATGM spam to defeat any enemy. After that data is acquired, regardless of who acquired it, THEN the helicopter should be able to engage from behind obstacles. I wonder if AI will be able to participate in this... 

Any of this seem ridiculous? Agree? Disagree? I would like to know. Thanks for reading.

 

[xon2 102]

The Shikra tgp vertical angle is too limited. When i look at a target through the tgp and lase and then try to lock it up the old way, i.e. pointing my gun cross in the hud over the laser marker, it often reaches the tgp vertical angle limit before the gun cross in the hud comes over it.

[ski2060 167]

So, Warlordz.. 
You are aware that Radar range and detection abilities are fully configurable by modders with the new code base in Jets?
There are Variables for Range, Angle, speed, height and a couple others that any modder can implements for their airframe to make them mimic their Real Life™ counterparts?

As far as new active defense for Tanks/AFV's?  Probably coming in the TANKS DLC.

[Warlordz 0]

2 hours ago, ski2060 said:

So, Warlordz.. 
You are aware that Radar range and detection abilities are fully configurable by modders with the new code base in Jets?
There are Variables for Range, Angle, speed, height and a couple others that any modder can implements for their airframe to make them mimic their Real Life™ counterparts?

As far as new active defense for Tanks/AFV's?  Probably coming in the TANKS DLC.

Thanks for clarifying it's changeability regarding the code.

And the active defense seems to be coming way too late to be "interesting". Hopefully the tanks DLC brings a load more content over active defense because there's a lot of long-awaited features modders are struggling to create for our enjoyment. MODDERS.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

oukej, i was testing various features of these new sensors and found that at no point could we get the yellow ThreatMarking or red ThreatLocked indicators to activate.

 

We tried with all the jets, all air to air weapons as well as with the Tigris.

 

Having this operate would be useful as it would allow pilots to pop countermeasures before a missile is even launched in an attempt to break the lock.

 

On top of this at no point have I ever seen a target marked as red for hostile. We had a 3v3 dogfight and our targets were always Ambiguous White, never red.

 

Also, the TGP for the A-149 seems to be limited to about 90 degrees which makes self designating very difficult as the TGP hits gimbal limits before you fly over the target which causes the laser and subsequently the bomb to go off target.

[firewill 3873]

5 hours ago, Warlordz said:

This annoyed me the most. The F-14 Tomcat(mod) was absolutely terrible when it came to taking down targets at long range... because it couldn't search for them at long range! I'm not into the modding biz yet, so I don't know if there is a way to bypass the range of "Ex-Long"(If you know please tell me) 

hmm...

[ski2060 167]

Holy Shit Firewill, is that a 370 Km range on your F14 now with Dev build? Oh Sweet Zombie Jesus!  My pilots are going to FREAK!

[Warlordz 0]

2 hours ago, firewill said:

hmm...

Woah. I need to update or something. I was just testing the mods so I wouldn't get stood up like this (thanks Firewill) and it still happened.

It's odd that in the dev build I was clocking in at 8km max on the radar. Maybe you made changes? Regardless, thank you.

Funny cuz I was reading the changelog for F-15 then I saw that I got quoted by the creator... Irony 

[firewill 3873]

11 minutes ago, Warlordz said:

Woah. I need to update or something. I was just testing the mods so I wouldn't get stood up like this (thanks Firewill) and it still happened.

It's odd that in the dev build I was clocking in at 8km max on the radar. Maybe you made changes? Regardless, thank you.

Funny cuz I was reading the changelog for F-15 then I saw that I got quoted by the creator... Irony 

sensor range is can be customize. and will update after jet dlc release.

[Strike_NOR 898]

3 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

oukej, i was testing various features of these new sensors and found that at no point could we get the yellow ThreatMarking or red ThreatLocked indicators to activate.

Been testing for a while now and I agree. Can't seem to get anything from a Tigris or Shikra lock.

 

3 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Having this operate would be useful as it would allow pilots to pop countermeasures before a missile is even launched in an attempt to break the lock.

I agree it should work this way for Radar Guided Missiles as they are active homing and give "hints" that they are coming. And speaking of missile launches. Please get rid of the IR-seeker "M" symbol on the sensor HUD. One of the major advantages of IR missiles are that they are passive and incredibly hard to track from a maneuvering aircraft. Players should get a missile launch direction at best. For Radar Guided missiles that's a different story. They are much harder to shake but also emit constant radiation. The strength of the radiation can be measured and the jet can "Guesstimate" the distance and angle it is approaching from. For these incoming missiles I would suggest keeping the "M" symbol on the sensor HUD.

 

3 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

On top of this at no point have I ever seen a target marked as red for hostile. We had a 3v3 dogfight and our targets were always Ambiguous White, never red.

Same. Always white for me. Do we have to activate datalink in object settings to get the colored symbols? Even if it's just for our own jet?

 

3 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Also, the TGP for the A-149 seems to be limited to about 90 degrees which makes self designating very difficult as the TGP hits gimbal limits before you fly over the target which causes the laser and subsequently the bomb to go off target.

I do not know the gimbal limits of the TGP on the A149, but it looks like a "Litening pod", and it should be able to gimbal towards the rear quite a bit, enough to let you land the bomb on target.

[dr. hladik 231]

5 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

On top of this at no point have I ever seen a target marked as red for hostile. We had a 3v3 dogfight and our targets were always Ambiguous White, never red.

 

To see target red, it must be confirmed as enemy by someone (by mission maker and script command "confirmSensorTarget").

[agent556 5]

It might be a good idea to change the names or truncate the visible name shown in the radar screen

 

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

1 hour ago, dr. hladik said:

 

To see target red, it must be confirmed as enemy by someone (by mission maker and script command "confirmSensorTarget").

 

So just to clarify this confirmation of an enemy cannot be done by player control in-game unless a scripted solution is developed?

How does the mission maker specify that someone is an enemy?

 

In my case we were messing around using the standard Master Zeus and never saw red contacts.  I've also never seen red contacts when simply placing a NATO jet against a CSAT jet via editor.

[oukej 2910]

On 16. 4. 2017 at 8:52 PM, mrsandbox said:

I i press "T" i cant lock any target. 

Switched Radar on. Just placed me in a jet and some tanks and AA vehicles, but no luck with locking and engaging them^^=)

On 17. 4. 2017 at 0:54 AM, CANADAVE said:

Does radar only work for Air targets?  I could not get the Radar to find or lock ground targets.  Maybe ground targets are laser and IR / TGP indicated and locked only.

21 hours ago, CANADAVE said:

Placed 3 mechanized platoons on the salt flats in Altis.  Set view distance and object view distance to 12KM.  Turned radar on.  Flew toward Salt Flats.  Did not get any indication of radar contacts until under 4km.  Under 4km contacts are white dots/boxes.  Also show on HUD as 'dots'.    Turned radar off and approached again. Same behavior - got  contacts on the radar display and dots on HUD under 4km.   I think these are 'visual' markers / indicators as they appear even when the radar is off.

 

Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?

By default [ T ] is for marking a target under the cursor / center of view. [ R ] is for switching to next target from the pool of tracked targets (from all sensors), except of friendly.
It may also be that your radar is anti-air only and doesn't see or filters out anything in ground noise that is not moving fast enough. There are two issues that come with that - one is communicating unique sensor properties. We're still in the tweaking process and nothing is final. Otherwise we plan to add little info to the virtual garage, but perhaps only post Jets release. The second issue is potential lack of realism. Some modern systems might be able to detect more or provide more information.
We are definitely open to feedback and we're primarily interested in anything that will help these sensor-equipped assets better fulfil their role in the combined arms environment, gameplay-wise.
 

On 17. 4. 2017 at 0:54 AM, CANADAVE said:

- Is there a reason why only the wipeout shows where TGP is pointing / area locked on the sensor window and with a specific HUD icon?  In the new jets there is no visual cone that shows where TGP is pointed or any icon on the HUD that shows the point where it is area locked.   

 

- On wipeout when TGP is area locked there is an indicator that shows up in the HUD (dashed circle) that shows the specific point on the ground to line up for CCIP or gun runs (very useful).   When this area locked point is out of HUD FOV (either left or right ) there should be an indicator (maybe on the heading tape) to indicate which way to turn to bring the area lock point into the HUD FOV.  Can this be added?

 

On 17. 4. 2017 at 8:11 AM, Imperator[TFD] said:

I must say, the animated radar on top of the Cheetah/Tigris that spins if radar is switched to active is a nice touch!

The idea has been born in this thread;)

On 13. 1. 2017 at 3:36 AM, Ivanoff.N said:

The other thing is a visual. 360 radar is possible because the dish is spinning around, but on your models it is static, perhaps it could be tweaked to spin when radar is on and be static when off or something like that:

 

On 17. 4. 2017 at 10:40 AM, five_seven5-7 said:

Does the sensor indicates if targets are below or above us?

If the target is tracked by radar you'll see the targets altitude. Other than that there's no other indication.

 

 

On 17. 4. 2017 at 10:40 AM, five_seven5-7 said:

Shouldn't exist the incoming missile threat, because of that we know when to deploy flares. Only a warning when a missile was launch and their position.

The incoming missile track is an abstraction of missile warning receivers (we don't simulate whether that's radar sign., UV or IR nor the detection range of such). As a limitation of the system you only get warnings about missiles flying at you, whereas more realistically you should get a warning about any missile within the MWR range.

 

On 17. 4. 2017 at 10:40 AM, five_seven5-7 said:

Shouldn't we able to lock friendly, heat signature it's the same, but mark them with a cross instead of the square symbol.

Already there.
 

On 17. 4. 2017 at 11:46 AM, Cenwulf said:

Another question with regard to making AI pilots appear a bit intelligent and increase thier life expectancy in missions where the creator (or curator) might not want to have to micro manage them so much. Would it be possible to create some kind of "No Fly Zone" module that could be synced to an area trigger to simulate knowledge of or perceived threat from potential AA in that area and prevent AI aircraft of different types from venturing into it?

Nice idea!
 

8 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

oukej, i was testing various features of these new sensors and found that at no point could we get the yellow ThreatMarking or red ThreatLocked indicators to activate.

 

We tried with all the jets, all air to air weapons as well as with the Tigris.

It should appear if you get marked by someone with Zephyr missile selected. The behavior of the CM systems hasn't really changed, only in terms of configuration. IR missiles give no "lock" warning, only in-flight warning.

 

8 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

Also, the TGP for the A-149 seems to be limited to about 90 degrees which makes self designating very difficult as the TGP hits gimbal limits before you fly over the target which causes the laser and subsequently the bomb to go off target.

Not the first time we get that feedback. Can be set to 360. Although one reason to keep the current state can be to retain some benefit of having an actual JTAC on the ground.

[oukej 2910]

14 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

So just to clarify this confirmation of an enemy cannot be done by player control in-game unless a scripted solution is developed?

How does the mission maker specify that someone is an enemy?

 

In my case we were messing around using the standard Master Zeus and never saw red contacts.  I've also never seen red contacts when simply placing a NATO jet against a CSAT jet via editor.

The ambiguity of targets has been a deliberate move to increase importance of IDing your targets prior to firing.
Yes, currently there's no way for a player or AI to confirm an enemy while playing.

Work-in-progress atm are

• https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/confirmSensorTarget
• Eden attributes

[kbbw123 115]

Issn't it possible for ground engagements to link it to side units?

 

Say you have a jet on standby to provide CAS, in order for him to engage targets he needs confirmation that it is enemy right? so you have a recon JTAC team on the ground aswel that would confirm targets for you by just seeing them, that way you could even let AI confim them to you because they recognized the target as enemy and has relayed that to all Blufor.

 

For Air to Air situations you would need somewhat as a AWACS to confirm radar sigs as actual enemies or a HQ Flight control tower

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

16 minutes ago, oukej said:

Not the first time we get that feedback. Can be set to 360. Although one reason to keep the current state can be to retain some benefit of having an actual JTAC on the ground.

 

That's an interesting idea however currently the only weapon that is laser guided and able to be equipped by the A-149 is the GBU-12.  In a multiplayer environment buddy-designating is a possibility but for the time being it's a bit trickier for the Gryphon to designate his own targets.

 

17 minutes ago, oukej said:

It should appear if you get marked by someone with Zephyr missile selected. The behavior of the CM systems hasn't really changed, only in terms of configuration. IR missiles give no warning.

 

Am I correct in saying that the currently radar-guided missiles are:

Zephyr ?

AMRAAM ?

R77 ?

 

Have you considered implementing radar threat-marking for the ground based Cheetah/Tigris?  I know the missiles are IR based but would the cannon rounds be radar-guided due to ballistic trajectory calculations eg: the TLI that appears?