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

[Jigsor 175]

@heavygunnerYou might aswell make the freedom undestructible because it does not have damage models anyway and only damaged sections of the ship will dissappear when destroyed at least the last time I checked or has this changed?

[heavygunner 179]

The problem is that you can hardly make the jets and player on deck indestructible.

[Jigsor 175]

@heavygunner Ahh, well then I think its more of an age old problem that BIS will never totally sort out which is friendly AI shooting through  other friendlies who get caught in the crossfire and shooting through objects based on last known position and expected position. This might describe the problem a little better? But, ofcourse the Freedom should not be allowed to take damage at anytime do to the reasons I mentioned before..

[xon2 102]

So i am very happy that the gunships (and i wish all helos would get it) finally got a pilots camera like we have seen being added to all the jets early last year with the jets dlc. And great also, that the new pilots camera can be ground stabilitzed in area - and point track mode and thus enable for a way better SP experience or giving both gunship crew in MP a good picture of the AO.

So the problem right now is that the gunner's camera/turret cannot be ground stabilized the same way in area/point track mode, which makes the Scalpel and DAGR when slaved to the laser pretty unusable. These are only usable if the gunship is absolutely imobile and does not drift, move, sink or climb at all...which is very hard to achieve especially with the AFM enabled. When the gunner tries to lase during flight he has to keep that laser spo  on the target by hand/manually, and the ai is not able to do that at all. Here are some examples:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To rectify this and make the gunships really usable, i would suggest to make the gunner's camera and turret able to be ground stabilized in area/point track mode like all the other jets and pilots cameras (its the year 2035 afterall :) ), and make the ai use that mechanic and ground stabilize the turret when you order it to target or watch an area or object or vehicle until you order it to unlock or lock something else.

Second, giving the laser to the pilot when selecting manual fire would achieve a similar thing because the pilot can than point/area track the target or spot on the ground, lase himself and lock onto that laser. In SP the pilot is doing it all alone anyway, and keeping the laser the ai gunner's prerogative does not add to immersion or CA feeling, just one more link in the chain that might not work properly. If you order the ai to target a vehile it lock on visually can track that just fine and guide the DAGR/Scalpel in manually without issues, even when moving the gunship around quite severly. Its just the laser that is wandering around.

I feel we are really close with the gunships abilities and that little addition would make them as viable as all the jets (and the older models got all the goodies from the new jets dlc ones) and bring the whole new sensor, targeting and missile lock on modes into line with the jets.

 

EDIT: a bit more testing done; and the ai can keep the laser perfectly on the object even when the gunship is in full motion, and the laser stays on target until the lockup process for Scapel/DAGR starts. When locking up, the laser starts to move along the axis of motion of gunship in 3d space.

[oukej 2910]

12 hours ago, xon2 said:

 i would suggest to make the gunner's camera and turret able to be ground stabilized in area/point track mode like all the other jets and pilots cameras

Turrets and pilotCamera use different technology in the code. There were plans and it had been in the backlog, but it didn't get through. Sorry about that.

[xon2 102]

Thx for the info, thats a pitty. Hrm, this makes the laser kinda pretty useless, even for two human players, keeping that laser spot on when the gunship moves is very hard. Yes, there is manual guidance mode for the standard loadouts of both gunships. And adding the laser to the pilots camera when you take manual control? Just like it is now in all jets?

[the_one_and_only_Venator 162]

5 hours ago, xon2 said:

Thx for the info, thats a pitty. Hrm, this makes the laser kinda pretty useless, even for two human players, keeping that laser spot on when the gunship moves is very hard. Yes, there is manual guidance mode for the standard loadouts of both gunships. And adding the laser to the pilots camera when you take manual control? Just like it is now in all jets?

 

Or what about adding a second laser designator to the pilot camera of the gunships. So the pilot can actively help his gunner and provide some targets to him and others.

[jone_kone 158]

I tried search and general google searches but I didn´t find relevant mods or topics concerning this. 

 

Is there any way to reduce the effectiveness / resolution of thermal imaging equipment? Yes, they can be disabled and the view distance limited, but for MP play with heavy assets TI is still pretty OP. It would be great to have a way to degrade the effectiveness (for game play sake, not realism) to some degree but still have TI as an option for vehicle crews.

 

Is there a way to configure how much heat a soldier or vehicle radiates (other than using CTRG uniforms) or a way to set the sensitivity of thermal imaging equipment used in the mission?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

57 minutes ago, jone_kone said:

I tried search and general google searches but I didn´t find relevant mods or topics concerning this. 

 

Is there any way to reduce the effectiveness / resolution of thermal imaging equipment? Yes, they can be disabled and the view distance limited, but for MP play with heavy assets TI is still pretty OP. It would be great to have a way to degrade the effectiveness (for game play sake, not realism) to some degree but still have TI as an option for vehicle crews.

 

Is there a way to configure how much heat a soldier or vehicle radiates (other than using CTRG uniforms) or a way to set the sensitivity of thermal imaging equipment used in the mission?

 

Adjust the time of year the mission takes place.

[jone_kone 158]

45 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

Adjust the time of year the mission takes place.

To what parameter?  tried summer and winter settings and a sole infantry man still shines like a beacon from 1,5 km (ACE active in modset).

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

2 minutes ago, jone_kone said:

To what parameter?  tried summer and winter settings and a sole infantry man still shines like a beacon from 1,5 km (ACE active in modset).

 

You'll never eliminate that part of the issue entirely however by changing the time of year it becomes substantially harder to spot them as the terrain becomes more washed out which in turn makes navigating harder.  I've been building my scenarios with thermals during summer months and my players always bitch at me because TI becomes near useless.

[jone_kone 158]

22 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

You'll never eliminate that part of the issue entirely however by changing the time of year it becomes substantially harder to spot them as the terrain becomes more washed out which in turn makes navigating harder.  I've been building my scenarios with thermals during summer months and my players always bitch at me because TI becomes near useless.

 

I tested on Altis. What maps have you used?

[xon2 102]

Again concerning the gunships in SP. How can one reliably; as the pilot; attack something like military towers with Scapels/DARGS? As far as i can see it, the actual target aquisition of the ai gunner is not directly on that part of the building that you aimed/looked at yourself when targeting, but is placed in the centre, which is fine for most buildings. Problem with those green military towers (and solar towers when attacked from the front is that the laser goes through the openings of the steel skeleton below the actual housing structure. Before the TOP flight profile, the missle would ''accidentally'' hit the tower and impact the tower on its straight path on route to the laser spot which was some distance behind the tower depending on the angle (shallow angle offsets the laser spot quite far behind). For instance, i tried a Scalpel aimed at a solar tower on Altis and the solar tower is correctly recognized by the gunner and the laser (which i turned on but didn't lock to be sure were the gunners is looking at) placed in its centre. But the actual laser goes through the opening in the middle of the solar tower and impacts way beyond it. It works if you approach the solar tower from the side when the centre of is closed from you point of view. The green military towers are open from all sides.

 

I guess the ai aiming point is calculated by finding the intersection of the halfway points of the x and y axes of a building. If this coordinate is not a closed surface the laser goes right through and the TOP mode sends the missle way above it to impact at the ''correct'' laser point, which is obviously way behind the intended target. Is it possible to adjust the centre aiming point for the ai for those buildings?

[krycek 349]

Macers are completely crap so by extension the jets\drones when are using it. I can't manage to get a higher lock-on distance than 1km or even shorter, at best 1.5km in ideal conditions. In AI hands it's even crappier, I tried reveal in target init, max skill everything. The missile is pure garbage. As an AGM-65 wannabe it's not even 1% close to the real thing.

For balance/not too op purposes either extend it's lock-on range to a real in-game distance of at least 3-4km or scrap it. At that range my AI jets\drones could actually have a chance to return to base once in a while.

I have better chances to use bombs+laser designator than to use this thing.

[SuicideKing 233]

2 hours ago, krycek said:

For balance/not too op purposes either extend it's lock-on range to a real in-game distance of at least 3-4km or scrap it. At that range my AI jets\drones could actually have a chance to return to base once in a while.

They already have a 6km lock range, provided the plane's IR sensor can see that far, and the target vehicle is warm.

 

Sounds like in your case you're only seeing it once it's appeared on the visual sensors. Give the vehicle a waypoint or force its engine on. Also make sure you're testing without mods to make sure nothings interfering with things. I've noticed in the past that IR sensors don't work beyond your view distance (object or overall, i can't remember which one), so try setting your view distances to 6km as well.

[a_killer_wombat 120]

Macers can lock ground vehicles from very far away. Try the following:

• Object view distance >6km
• Enemy vehicle has engine on for >30 seconds (vehicles take time to warm up but I'm not certain how long it takes)
• Manually select enemy vehicle as your target by entering target pod view (Left Ctrl + right mouse click), aim at enemy vehicle and then press target key (T).

If you don't manually search for enemy vehicles yourself using the targeting pod as described above, you are then relying on your aircraft's sensors to pickup the enemy vehicles for you which may only happen at shorter ranges.

 

NOTE: Vehicles don't necessarily need to have their engine on to be lockable by heat seeker missiles; if an enemy vehicle has been firing its guns a lot then the hot barrels will enable the missile to lock onto them.

[krycek 349]

My beef is mostly with AI, I also never use mods while testing.

First try plane engages on the first run on short distance, second time it needs to do a first pass which Oukej says it's usual. Test conditions: F\A-181 max skill, target vehicle is driving around, max view distance for objects too and clear weather.

Jet has a seek&destroy wp and I also have a move wp to measure where the plane will return to engage (that happens as you can see in the vid around Strogos bay which is roughly 3.5km from airport).

Second test is with an UCAV Sentinel loaded with Macers which doesn't even makes a first pass and it engages from short distance, my guess is 500-700m (at this distance sorry to say but every air unit is toast even from a min skill ground unit if that Kamysh was actually firing).

 

So yes, having max view distance improves lock on distance from my previous playthroughs but far from 6km, in all the tests I've made with AI not even once it's been close to that distance.

Another thing to note is this 3.5km distance is in frankly perfect conditions. Not sure how many players have these ideal conditions when playing basically a single fat target in open view moving around, not returning fire with max view distance when more units are involved.

 

F-181

 

Sentinel Drone

 

[SuicideKing 233]

F/A-181 has a IR sensor that can detect ground targets up to 2000m, without adding vehicle specific modifiers. The Sentinel can detect ground targets up to 3000m away. See https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Sensors#Vehicles . You may want to test with the A-164 and To-199 as well.

 

That said I do think the Black Wasp's sensors need to be longer range for ground targets, and that Macers should have a laser seeker as well (or at least the Macer II).

 

Edit: can't speak for the AI issues though.

[krycek 349]

17 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

F/A-181 has a IR sensor that can detect ground targets up to 2000m, without adding vehicle specific modifiers. The Sentinel can detect ground targets up to 3000m away. See https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Sensors#Vehicles . You may want to test with the A-164 and To-199 as well.

 

That said I do think the Black Wasp's sensors need to be longer range for ground targets, and that Macers should have a laser seeker as well (or at least the Macer II).

 

Edit: can't speak for the AI issues though.

 

Added A-164 Wipeout, A-149 Gryphon, T-201 Shikra with KH25 missiles and repeated a Black Wasp test, same test conditions as yesterday but as usual with Arma 3 AI new day, new randomness. Today they all decided to engage on the first pass which is pretty short distance from the target. I think sensors messed AI even more than before.

Basically for air support you need humans.

 

 

[oukej 2910]

(Also added note to the feedback tracker) The AI pilot has to first know that the target is an enemy. He doesn't know that from sensors alone (sensors do not reveal allegiance). Missile itself only provides some engagement envelope. As for target acquisition - that's a different story :)

In the following test I've added a Wipeout pilot to the player's group. Player, as a leader, then gives the Wipeout a target (T-100, with engines already running). That makes the AI pilot know that he should expect an enemy target at a given position. The pilot however can't see the target yet. So the default weapon - selected by the AI pilot - remains the cannon (AI only switches to a desired weapon once engaging).
AI only switches to the Macer around 5 km from the target. This depends on:

• the weapon's probability (target value coef.) vs. range
• missile's own missileLockMaxDistance (6 km for Macer)
• and the AI's skill, e.g. AI with skill 1.0 will launch Macer @ ~5.5km (after it has already acquired the target and waited 3s for the lock).
  Keep in mind that in this example the AI pilot already has a good knowledge about the target from his leader (group), so the skill only affects the speed of the actual engagement. If the target was a completely new one and there was no info about it from AI's group then the skill would also affect the initial acquisition and recognition that the target is an enemy and should be engaged.

 

 

[krycek 349]

Interesting test Oukej. If you had a chance to look at my vids, could you explain the behaviour in there? As I mentioned the test conditions were with full AI skill for the pilot and max view&objects distance as I showed in the beginning of each vid. The target also had it's engine running. From your vid the only difference would be that you grouped the jet to your soldier while in my case the jets identified their targets on their own and I acted only as an observer. 

 

Perhaps the target acquisition is still buggy like you said because I noticed two different behaviours in my case with identical conditions between my tests.

Black Wasp makes a first run and I assume in this time it identifies the moving target (allegiance etc) and it returns(and fires its Macers) for a second run around 3.5km distance from the enemy.

The second behaviour which I noticed&recorded yesterday when I tested more jets as you can see they won't even wait for the second pass, I assume they suddenly identified the target when getting closer to the enemy and fired the missiles.This results in my previous problem with their short engagement distance.

[SuicideKing 233]

Well, now that we know anti-radiation missiles are a thing, it would be nice to know whether all aircraft will get the anti-radiation sensors or not. IMO it would be unfortunate if only the CAS jets got this, as that limits the assets we can use in missions. I think there are two reasonable ways of doing this.

1. Decide to give anti-radiation sensors to all planes (except the blackfish of course) and both gunships. Let the mission makers decide on the loadout or disable the sensor. Probably the best way to go about it imo.
2. Go down the "realism" route. This would mean planes like the Wipeout and Buzzard do not get this capability, but the others do (except VTOLs i suppose).

Would really appreciate hearing thoughts on this - I don't want to dream up missions that can't be made! ;) 

[a_killer_wombat 120]

36 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

Well, now that we know anti-radiation missiles are a thing, it would be nice to know whether all aircraft will get the anti-radiation sensors or not. IMO it would be unfortunate if only the CAS jets got this, as that limits the assets we can use in missions. I think there are two reasonable ways of doing this.

1. Decide to give anti-radiation sensors to all planes (except the blackfish of course) and both gunships. Let the mission makers decide on the loadout or disable the sensor. Probably the best way to go about it imo.
2. Go down the "realism" route. This would mean planes like the Wipeout and Buzzard do not get this capability, but the others do (except VTOLs i suppose).

Would really appreciate hearing thoughts on this - I don't want to dream up missions that can't be made! ;) 

 

I think you've misunderstood. Anti-radiation missiles are essentially passive radar missiles, i.e. the missile itself has it's own radar sensor which is receive only (doesn't emit radar). The missiles itself "listens" for incoming radar emissions and then, once it senses an incoming radar emission, it can lock and home-in on that radar emission until it reaches the source of the emission, e.g. enemy vehicle with active radar on. The aircraft which launches the anti-radiation missile doesn't necessarily need it's own passive or active sensors to engage, it relies instead on the missile's sensor. Most aircraft have their own passive radar anyway, i.e. radar warning receiver.

 

However, I imagine the way it will be implemented in Arma is that the aircraft will need to have a passive radar sensor for it to successfully use an anti-radiation missile but that isn't a huge issue since almost every pylon wielding aircraft in Arma 3 has it's own passive radar sensor (the AH-9 Pawnee being the single exception for whatever reason).

[SuicideKing 233]

47 minutes ago, a_killer_wombat said:

However, I imagine the way it will be implemented in Arma is that the aircraft will need to have a passive radar sensor for it to successfully use an anti-radiation missile but that isn't a huge issue since almost every pylon wielding aircraft in Arma 3 has it's own passive radar sensor (the AH-9 Pawnee being the single exception for whatever reason).

They all have RWRs (i.e. passive radar with allowsMarking = 0). The Anti-radiation sensor is the same thing with allowsMarking = 1 (and with less range in the default template). This is currently only enabled only for the Wipeout and Neophron (look for AntiRadiationSensorComponent), hence this question.

class SensorTemplateAntiRadiation: SensorTemplatePassiveRadar
{
	componentType = "PassiveRadarSensorComponent";
	class AirTarget
	{
		minRange = 8000;
		maxRange = 8000;
		objectDistanceLimitCoef = -1;
		viewDistanceLimitCoef = -1;
	};
	class GroundTarget
	{
		minRange = 8000;
		maxRange = 8000;
		objectDistanceLimitCoef = -1;
		viewDistanceLimitCoef = -1;
	};
	angleRangeHorizontal = 90;
	angleRangeVertical = 90;
	allowsMarking = 1;
};

I hope this answers your first concern too - given a set of radiation signatures, you'll need to be able to select which one to send the missile to. For example:

 

So the point is not that it's difficult to implement, but the question is which aircraft will get this AntiRadiationSensorComponent (i.e. passive radar with allowsMarking = 1)?

[oukej 2910]

2 hours ago, a_killer_wombat said:

The aircraft which launches the anti-radiation missile doesn't necessarily need it's own passive or active sensors to engage, it relies instead on the missile's sensor. Most aircraft have their own passive radar anyway, i.e. radar warning receiver.

The antiradiation sensor (which allows marking) is necessary in order to be able to use "R" to cycle through targets. Otherwise the missile could still be locked via "T" but there comes an inconvenience of having to aim at the target. With long range engagements expected from SEAD this wouldn't be much useful.

So to answer the question - yes, at least Jets' jets are getting the antiradiation sens. as well.