Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just realized that I had not been trying on Dev Branch the last week. My bad. Won't be making that mistake again. What I can report though is that the new sensors are definitely a large improvement over yesterdays ArmA 3. I was seeing a lot more symbology in the HUD, both target boxes pointing towards locked air targets, and CCIP pippers etc. This is brilliant stuff. I also noted that all target info has disappeared from the 3D world. The only thing that remains is a white box.

 

I have a question about the current state of affairs:

 

  • Will it be absolutely necessary to keep the white 3D world target box overlay in the future (non-Arcade settings)?

The reason I am asking is this is because I made an observation when flying yesterday. I was in the CAS Buzzard and switched radar to ON. As I was flying, I noticed a neophron on the radar UI a few degrees to the right, and hit "T" until it got locked up. Once locked, the white box appeared outside the cockpit, BUT also a small box appeared to the right on the cockpit HUD. If I flew towards the box, it eventually overlapped the Neophron, and guided me straight to it. This is very much like it works in real life. So, why keep the white box?

 

If I recall correctly, oukej said that it was for redundant purposes for aircraft not equipped with a HUD (how would you otherwise know you had acquired a lock), but is it really so?

 

Generally speaking, if vehicles can not overlay target data infront of the operators line of sight (such as a HUD or similar) it has other means of doing so. For the Wipeout or Neophron, this would typically be a cockpit display linked to either a Targeting Pod or a missile seeker (like the IR Maverick). Another way is by a radar scope, or other forms of sights/viewports. While these methods are extremely varied in real life, I think a few different types could cover/simulate it closely enough in ARMA.

 

Targeting pod:

  1. By use of vehicle camera: Whatever target you lock onto, will be displayed in Thermal/TV through a PIP camera. (Maybe pip viewrange is too much of a problem). A semi-realistic way to save PIP resources, would be to have the PIP render ONLY the 3D LOD of the target at much further ranges, for identification purposes. This method probably requires a lot of work to the PIP code and may not be possible at all. It's just a suggestion. The idea is, If you get a lock and do not have the current white box overlapping it, and no info in the cockpit HUD, then you get a cameraview that shows what the target looks like through the sensors point of view.
  2. By use of in-game optics: Give the pilot the possibility to enter optics that simulate targeting pod. Ideally this could be coupled with an enhanced autopilot feature. It would basically be like giving an UAV waypoints, or a loiter command, so that the pilot can focus on using the targeting pod wihout worrying about crashing. While in targeting pod view, he can control the TGP camera to zoom, find and lock targets. He can even turn on his own laser designator and ground-stabilize it at a certain point or set it to track a vehicle. Once this is done, he can return to piloting the aircraft and releasing weapons when he has an audible lock. Because he used the TGP to identify and lock target, he knows what he is going to hit.

 

Radar scope:

  1. By use of ingame sensor HUD: Just use the already available sensor HUD. You can see a target on it, lock it and get target information. Say you are flying a Mig-21 style plane without radar symbology and target data in the aircraft HUD. You would be looking at the radar scope, locking the target and flying towards it until you hear a steady tone. This indicates that the locked target on your display is within a firing solution and you can comfortably release the weapon, knowing it will chase the locked target you have on the sensor HUD, even if the game would not show a white box around it in the 3D world.

 

Weapon camera:

  1. By use of vehicle camera: Like point 1. in targeting pod. Whatever you lock onto will be displayed through a PIP viewport.
  2. By use of in-game optics:  When a pilot selects a weapon and locks a target, he can hit the "enter optics" button to see the weapon camera in fullscreen. The weapon camera would be like a TGP view, but without player control and limited to the weapon sensors field of view (viewcone). It would be locked to the target that the sensor has acquired and would be just for visual confirmation for the pilot. This would allow longer view distance than PIP, and cost less resources. Only disadvantage is that player can't see cockpit view any more, or control the aircraft while viewing the optics.

 

So, that are a few different approaches to address the problem of removing the "white box" around targets in 3D view. I would absolutely love to see all weapon symbology in the cockpit HUD. For me this is like removing the crosshairs from rifles, and forcing players to use iron sights or optics, with the main difference being that rifles didn't show white target boxes. It would do the same for hand-held guided weapons. So if you wanted to lock something with the Titan AA, you could look at it outside optics view and hear the locking tone, but in order to be absolutely sure you have locked the correct target, that means you need to enter optics and see the symbology. I think this is a realistic approach and should ideally be achievable. 

 

 

Sorry for the long post, I just want to challenge the idea of having to keep the white target box, as it is unrealistic unless you have a "helmet mounted display".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Reality can often be the best "game balance inspiration" after all

Well, we agree on that, however your earlier comment implied the direct opposite for me, dropping realism in favour for balancing one gamemode, which by the way could solve that problem by itself just like the probelm they had with the Marksmen DLC machineguns, with maybe not giving everyone the abillity to buy as much Jets/mgs as one likes, just like balancing always worked in Arma, by making the mission balanced and not the game....

 

As long as Arma is going to get more realism with this sensor update or the targeting improvements inside the MFD, you're not going to see me complain, however it already happened with the Stamina system and the Apex Campaign that it dropped realism/difficulty in favour of a more casual playsyle. I don't want to see it going even more in that direction, becuase aside from being a sandbox one core strength of Arma was that it wasn't jsut your usual casual  game.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, heavygunner said:

As long as Arma is going to get more realism with this sensor update or the targeting improvements inside the MFD, you're not going to see me complain,

 

I have serious doubts if targeting system in the MFD panel would be anything useable. Simply placing the targeting data on the panel would be just a visual enhancement. Have you ever used the built in monitor for targeting in HMG/GMG? Tech simply not ready for precise display of such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

I just want to challenge the idea of having to keep the white target box, as it is unrealistic unless you have a "helmet mounted display".

It would be interesting to remove the white target box, but make some version of it available when wearing the fighter pilot's helmet or heli pilot helmet since they both seem to be the type of helmets with HMDs built in.  (if anyone didnt notice with the heli pilot helmet, it has some electronics going on, most visible from the top with the wiring)

 

hell, a togglable HMD system for artificial horizon or attitude display for pilots of both kinds of aircraft would be a welcome feature, given the kind of equipment that the pilots have.

another possibility would be expanding the sensor capabilities to the use of an HMD pilot helmet in some fashion (detected aircraft, colored boxes with IFF) kind of like the intended capabilities of the current F-35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you BI for looking at the CCIP/TLI issue seriously! For us in KOTH this is a huge improvement I believe I think this will make a big difference in balancing out jet combat a bit. VERY excited to see how this changes the game. I wonder if a difficulty setting in the config file to either turn on or off (or if you want to go real fancy a third option to make it full screen as it is now) similar to the crosshairs being a setting to turn on and off. 

 

Thanks, 

 

Jakob HT

Hostile Takeover - KOTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is targeting pod locked area ground point visible / indicated on HUD when properly oriented with dev branch improvements?    is tgp locked ground point shown on radar top down view - even if only area locked to ground and not a target?     can you slew tgp to point selected on radar? 

 

zoomed in tgp is critical.  small mfds are not very functional until you lean in to view ie.  DCS.   please leave key bind for fullscreen mfd /multifunction camera. 

 

Thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JakobHT said:

Thank you BI for looking at the CCIP/TLI issue seriously! For us in KOTH this is a huge improvement I believe I think this will make a big difference in balancing out jet combat a bit. VERY excited to see how this changes the game. I wonder if a difficulty setting in the config file to either turn on or off (or if you want to go real fancy a third option to make it full screen as it is now) similar to the crosshairs being a setting to turn on and off. 

 

Thanks, 

 

Jakob HT

Hostile Takeover - KOTH

 

Oukej is leaning toward allowing the creator of the asset to determine its user-end capabilities, not server setting or script. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

Also apologies this may have nothing really to do with sensor overhaul. 

Replied to this one here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2016 at 5:02 PM, oukej said:

 

  • AA Buzzard has a 120° forward-looking radar with a 6km/2km range.

 

I did not know if it was my fault, but I had a lot of problems using AA Buzzard's radar, the target only appeared practically when I was in my field of vision (yes, I turned on the radar), the IR seemed to work correctly, It worked. Maybe it's the altitude that the other jet was, but I think they should give it a revised one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the tests that I did, I had the impression that the vertical range that the radar works is very short, making it very difficult to detect

Edited by Bruno Morais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2017 at 2:33 AM, heavygunner said:

That's the part where it isn't about realism anymore, but balancing. 

 

My 2 cents on balancing: It doesn't have a place in a game like Arma. Reality isn't balanced either. If one side is using 7.62 and the other is using 5.56, so be it. Making all sides use the same stupid 6.5 mm caseless ammo just for balancing was already a dubious (read: unrealistic) decision. 

If you want to balance something, make sure that it is reflected in gameplay. Regular army vs. Guerrillas, for example, nobody should expect balance in the weapons, equipment, or other parameters. To achieve balance, other factors should be used.

 

I admit I haven't followed the discussion thoroughly, however, balance is IMO a flimsy excuse for anything.

 

On 2/6/2017 at 9:25 AM, fn_Quiksilver said:

3. KotH is largest milsim unit: https://units.arma3.com/unit/hostiletakeover   with over 2100 members :D

followed closely by second largest milsim unit "Casual Arma Players" with over 1800 members https://units.arma3.com/unit/cap

 

Did you seriously just call KotH "milsim"? 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality is not and can never fully reflected in a game/Arma. As such the argument with "realism" being the only goal/consideration is pointless.

Share this post


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

By the tests that I did, I had the impression that the vertical range that the radar works is very short, making it very difficult to detect

The vertical angle of coverage was 90 degrees (so 45 degrees above and below the nose if aimDown = 0; that is); in the future you can verify this via the Config Viewer in the Editor (vehicle class name > Components > SensorsManagerComponent > Components > Active RadarSensorComponent ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, .kju said:

Reality is not and can never fully reflected in a game/Arma. As such the argument with "realism" being the only goal/consideration is pointless.

 

 

Arma is classed as a Military Simulator though, Arma's original focus is to simulate military realism/reality.... yea it might not be perfect but it can get very well damn close (which it currently is). Though if you start balancing stuff so equipment becomes relatively the same then whats the point in the 'Military Simulation', Arma simulates a large variety of warfare scenarios and as we know it, warfare is never truly balanced as each faction makes their own equipment .... I feel as though over time Arma will go from being classed as a Military Simulation to a First Person shooter if the balancing gets out of hand. 

 

Instead of nagging BI to balance something or remove a feature, people should embrace the pros and cons of the vehicles, new features or whatever it may be, they need to work around it by finding new ways to tackle the problem instead and find a solution rather than playing the 'This is OP and needs a nerf' card.  

 

Balancing isn't the only solution to some peoples problems. 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also this wasn't targeted at you Kju, was more of a general response. 

 

Again really really sorry for the rant. I want this game to prosper and I don't think balancing stuff is the right way to do it (especially in a Milsim game)

 

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, actually Arma 3 is officialy only a Sandbox, not a sim. Still, realism should be more important than balancing in Arma IMO and as oukej said, realism isn't mutually exclusive to balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it is fair enough to remove from the 3rd person view the new targeting improvements. if anything to keep some level of skill required to make things happen but also some level of realism involved having to use the cockpit huds.

 

Oukej I know you mean well and hopefully not. but Just don't be surprised when 1.68 drops if your reasonable attempts to compromise are met with calls to stripping back entirely everything and all the hard work basically back to nothing, because there won't be all the other parts of the puzzle ready until jets dlc takes off.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of making CCIP part of the HUD rather than the gamey floating crosshair. However, for this to work properly, one thing is needed:

Remove speed-based zoomout! This can't be stated enough. If that abomination was finally gone, HUD would become much more usable, as well as diegetic MFDs. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alwarren said:

My 2 cents on balancing: It doesn't have a place in a game like Arma. Reality isn't balanced either. If one side is using 7.62 and the other is using 5.56, so be it. Making all sides use the same stupid 6.5 mm caseless ammo just for balancing was already a dubious (read: unrealistic) decision. 

If you want to balance something, make sure that it is reflected in gameplay. Regular army vs. Guerrillas, for example, nobody should expect balance in the weapons, equipment, or other parameters. To achieve balance, other factors should be used.

Yes. Balancing != equality or symmetricity. Balancing = archers vs. horsemen vs. pikemen; Tiger vs. Shermans; Abrams vs. T-72s and T-80s; T-72 vs. Toyota Hilux; Ak-47 vs. OICW (uhh:P:D)  Caliber, speed, fire rate, armor, maneuverability, ordnance amount, guidance types, ease of use, economy ....or just "configFile" in Arma ;) That is balancing. Lack of balance throws you out of immersion because something is underpowered and frustrating or overpowered and boring.

 

But let's get back to the sensors please :)

 

3 hours ago, Bruno Morais said:

By the tests that I did, I had the impression that the vertical range that the radar works is very short, making it very difficult to detect

1 hour ago, chortles said:

The vertical angle of coverage was 90 degrees (so 45 degrees above and below the nose if aimDown = 0; that is); in the future you can verify this via the Config Viewer in the Editor (vehicle class name > Components > SensorsManagerComponent > Components > Active RadarSensorComponent ).

Unlike the horizontal range the limits of vert. one aren't readable anywhere on any display which may be also the issue. 
 

12 hours ago, CANADAVE said:

Is targeting pod locked area ground point visible / indicated on HUD when properly oriented with dev branch improvements? 

Only inside the fullscreen cam. view.

 

12 hours ago, CANADAVE said:

please leave key bind for fullscreen mfd /multifunction camera.

No worries, no plans to change that.

 

12 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Remove speed-based zoomout!

We will address that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, .kju said:

Reality is not and can never fully reflected in a game/Arma. As such the argument with "realism" being the only goal/consideration is pointless.

 

I know, back to sensors, but I would really like to point out that while realism isn't the only goal or consideration, it's at least a guideline. To claim that would not be the case is equally pointless.

 

1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

I like the idea of making CCIP part of the HUD rather than the gamey floating crosshair. However, for this to work properly, one thing is needed:

Remove speed-based zoomout! This can't be stated enough. If that abomination was finally gone, HUD would become much more usable, as well as diegetic MFDs. 

Yes, please, to both speed-based zoomout, and to CCIP being part of the HUD instead of the game interface (ideal case, selectable).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oukej said:

We will address that.

Oh, thank you. This will make high-speed vehicles so much better. Words cannot express how frustrating this had been. Combined with improvements to diegetic HUD and (hopefully) MFDs, ArmA planes are going to be taken to a whole new standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, .kju said:

Reality is not and can never fully reflected in a game/Arma. As such the argument with "realism" being the only goal/consideration is pointless.

 

Of course, but taking away bullets from a gun because the other side only has sticks isn't balancing either.

My point being, if something has a feature, don't take it away because of balancing. If an Apache has a FLIR camera, don't take it away because the OPFOR chopper doesn't. In the case at hand, I understand the concern of the KotH crowd was that planes become overpowering when they have "too many" targetting aids, but in how far is it balancing then if you take away capabilities that even planes in 2017 have?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PvP community always just as for server/difficulty options or scripting cmds to adjust the gameplay.

The opposing parties always make it into an all-or-nothing argument.

 

The main problem is BI, especially the A3 team, doesn't like more server/mission customization.

In the past BI introduced some options and some commands at least (that said it usually took months or years..).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, oukej said:

Unlike the horizontal range the limits of vert. one aren't readable anywhere on any display which may be also the issue. 
 

 

The height of an aircraft in the weapon can vary greatly, if the vertical distance is not wide enough it will become an almost impossible task to detect air and ground targets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alwarren said:

I understand the concern of the KotH crowd was that planes become overpowering when they have "too many" targetting aids, but in how far is it balancing then if you take away capabilities that even planes in 2017 have?

 

Balancing is what ruined many games. It is a double-edged sword. Modern games are being balanced to the point of boredom.

Please focus on making Vanilla Arma as best as it can be, and let communities (no matter how large or small they are) balance the game to their liking.

It is my opinion that game should be more enjoyable and not dumbed down.

 

Not directly related to sensors, but it can fit into this category:

Since jets are getting a big overhaul, will Flight instruments get some necessary attention too?

Feedback ticket https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123158

 

  • 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

×