Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apologies if this has already been asked, but would it be possible in the future (I know it's a lot of programming resources) to make it so that the Sniper pod currently modelled on the gripen can be applied to different aircraft to give them inbuilt cameras?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mallow234The different aircraft already have "inbuilt cameras" simulated, they're just not modeled (unless the NATO and CSAT DLC jets have a faux-EOTS) unlike the Gryphon's, unless that jet's TGP model is supposed to be part of a dynamic loadouts setup, meaning engine-native support for "pilotCamera/sensors directly dependent on having the TGP in the loadout or not".

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@mallow234The different aircraft already have "inbuilt cameras" simulated, they're just not modeled.


Are you certain?  May want to check those panning shots again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nodunit If you meant the protrusion behind the NATO and CSAT DLC jets' noses, that's what I meant by modeled cameras as "faux-EOTS"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chortles said:

@nodunit If you meant the protrusion behind the NATO and CSAT DLC jets' noses, that's what I meant by modeled cameras as "faux-EOTS"...

Ah okay by faux I was thinking of something that is there but not visible, derp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very much liking the direction this is going, having to actually find the targets, and everything else as well. Just some improvements and additions I would ask you to consider:

 

  • Make it possible to control the targeting pod when it's not full screen and at least the following keybindings separately just for the pod; moving, toggle zoom, nvg/flir mode. Of course the current bindings should still work in full screen mode.
  • Slaving TGP to boresight.
  • Need a lot more movement speed when binding aiming (the pod) to an analog axis. Adjustable sensitivity would be nice.
  • Re-sizable panel windows. I know it's an old quote, sorry if it's pointless to bring it up again for whatever reason.
On 12/23/2016 at 0:34 PM, oukej said:

We wanted that as well. This is more of a limitation of the Custom info panels system. Because it allows to show the same element twice feeding the dimensions into the elements separately would be more complicated and would need a different approach. You can at least reposition them.:/

Why not just make it impossible for them to render the same thing twice? Or resize them both at the same time to the same size? Even fixed size options for them would be better than only one. Seems simple, maybe I misunderstood the problem.

 

  • Separate key to toggle laser on/off. It's a bit annoying to switch weapons back and forth just to do that. Why do I even need to keep turning it on and off? Well I could say it's not polite to confuse other pilots by lasing at nothing, but it's mostly because of next thing :)

 

Macer can not lock to a vehicle that is being lased (in TGP view and using "lock target" binding). You lock on "laser target" but macer can't lock on a laser. It's probably intended, but in that case it should lock to the vehicle itself if you have macer selected, even if it's being lased.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2016 at 10:49 PM, kilrbe3 said:

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 agree, I'm really hoping for map/GPS incorporation into MFD's at some point, especially as the speed zoom in air vehicles is now being disabled so that we can read the cockpit displays. (switching to full-screen map view is risky when flying transport helicopters). I think having maybe a second sensor update for helicopters and jets somewhere down the line would add a huge amount for the hardcore/realism fans in Arma, an update that could maybe implement TMS and DMS up,down,left,right controls which could be used across all air vehicles for in cockpit sensor and display controls as in most realistic military flight simulators. Having the ability to switch sensor of interest (between two MFD's) would negate the need for twice as many bindings, as the TMS/DMS controls would be relevant to the currently selected MFD/SOI.

I totally understand that the development team has to prioritize things, and honestly I'm really happy that vehicle sensors are getting an overhaul, I'd just be over the moon to see these changes also incorporated into the existing MFD functionality and I'm sure many others would too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, pingopete said:

I agree, I'm really hoping for map/GPS incorporation into MFD's at some point, especially as the speed zoom in air vehicles is now being disabled so that we can read the cockpit displays. (switching to full-screen map view is risky when flying transport helicopters). I think having maybe a second sensor update for helicopters and jets somewhere down the line would add a huge amount for the hardcore/realism fans in Arma, an update that could maybe implement TMS and DMS up,down,left,right controls which could be used across all air vehicles for in cockpit sensor and display controls as in most realistic military flight simulators. Having the ability to switch sensor of interest (between two MFD's) would negate the need for twice as many bindings, as the TMS/DMS controls would be relevant to the currently selected MFD/SOI.

I totally understand that the development team has to prioritize things, and honestly I'm really happy that vehicle sensors are getting an overhaul, I'd just be over the moon to see these changes also incorporated into the existing MFD functionality and I'm sure many others would too.

It can be done.  Firewill is incorporating GPS Map and the TGP view into the cockpit MFD's of his planes as we speak.
If he can do it, BIS can do it.   Or maybe he can share his code work for other modder's Airframes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PredatorPie said:
  • Need a lot more movement speed when binding aiming (the pod) to an analog axis. Adjustable sensitivity would be nice.

 

This is up to the Aircraft mod author, the max rotating speed is defined in the config, so being able to adjust sensitivity on the fly (pun intended) wouldn't work from what I know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PredatorPie said:
  • Make it possible to control the targeting pod when it's not full screen and at least the following keybindings separately just for the pod; moving, toggle zoom, nvg/flir mode. Of course the current bindings should still work in full screen mode.

Unfortunately what you propose means having to have two different sets of keybinds depending on whether the TGP is full-screen or not, even if one of those sets (the current keybinds) still works when full-screened. That, and considering that Bohemia hasn't rolled out any keybinds yet for this with the current Custom Info panel ("CAM DRIVER") the lack could be intentional design.

2 hours ago, ski2060 said:

It can be done.  Firewill is incorporating GPS Map and the TGP view into the cockpit MFD's of his planes as we speak.
If he can do it, BIS can do it.   Or maybe he can share his code work for other modder's Airframes.

The main issue with "if he can do it, BIS can do it" is that while in theory Bohemia could do it for the DLC jets -- and to be fair this could be a TGP view -- I would think that the method(s) thereof would (all) require model access (read: MLODs for the jet and/or a proxied pilot's-view interior) which the Custom Info system very much does not, seemingly by design. As far as I can tell, for the DLC-accompanying features the MLODs only comes into play for the 'Extended Damage Model' and setting up dynamic loadouts (if the jet model isn't already set up accordingly) and maybe model config animations for bays, all else seems to be config work.

Share this post


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

 

This is up to the Aircraft mod author, the max rotating speed is defined in the config, so being able to adjust sensitivity on the fly (pun intended) wouldn't work from what I know. 

Sorry maybe I should have specified that I meant a joystick axis. The problem is that you don't get anywhere near the max rotating speed with a joystick axis.

 

Did some testing, timing how long it takes to move the pod on x axis from lock to lock. Mouse input 4 seconds, joystick input 44 seconds. Tried with different devices, only binding one device at a time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Macer can not lock to a vehicle that is being lased (in TGP view and using "lock target" binding). You lock on "laser target" but macer can't lock on a laser. It's probably intended, but in that case it should lock to the vehicle itself if you have macer selected, even if it's being lased.

 

This is intentional I believe. Macers can only lock onto thermal (or visual?) targets and so are limited by the range of those sensors (orange cone on the sensor display). Laser targets currently can be locked from a much greater distance making scalpels (which can lock laser targets) pretty op now compared to macers, I'm sure they'll balance this however.

 

I have to say though I hope they buff thermal and visual sensor range rather than nurf laser target range. I really like the locking range of scalpels at the moment, it feels realistic but I would like to see vehicle countermeasures like smoke be made more effective at blocking or disrupting a laser or thermal lock to kind of balance out their effective range. Be good if smoke screen deployment was a bit more vigorous for vehicles as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

This is intentional I believe. Macers can only lock onto thermal (or visual?) targets and so are limited by the range of those sensors (orange cone on the sensor display). Laser targets currently can be locked from a much greater distance making scalpels (which can lock laser targets) pretty op now compared to macers, I'm sure they'll balance this however.

 

Even with macers I'm doing the initial target spotting/locking with the TGP and afterwards pointing the actual macer at it. The thing is, with the pod I can lock to the vehicle just fine right after I turn the laser off, so the target does have enough signature. This has worked every time right after turning the laser off, so the range and angle hardly change. The laser almost always seems to override locking directly to the vehicle, which in my opinion shouldn't happen when macers or anything similar type is selected. This would be less of an issue if there was a dedicated key for toggling the laser on/off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that BIS simply removes the lock-on ability from Scalpel. It should be completely laser-guided, without the need to "lock on" to the laser. Locking on only makes sense with thermal or visual guidance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, PredatorPie said:

Even with macers I'm doing the initial target spotting/locking with the TGP and afterwards pointing the actual macer at it. The thing is, with the pod I can lock to the vehicle just fine right after I turn the laser off, so the target does have enough signature. This has worked every time right after turning the laser off, so the range and angle hardly change. The laser almost always seems to override locking directly to the vehicle, which in my opinion shouldn't happen when macers or anything similar type is selected. This would be less of an issue if there was a dedicated key for toggling the laser on/off.

 

Ah, that does sound like a bug in that case, possibly the laser "hit box" (for lack of a better phrase) covering up the thermal hit box and preventing the macer  from locking directly. Does it work if you try using a key bound to the "next target" action rather than the "target" action?

Share this post


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

 

This is intentional I believe. Macers can only lock onto thermal (or visual?) targets and so are limited by the range of those sensors (orange cone on the sensor display). Laser targets currently can be locked from a much greater distance making scalpels (which can lock laser targets) pretty op now compared to macers, I'm sure they'll balance this however.

 

I have to say though I hope they buff thermal and visual sensor range rather than nurf laser target range. I really like the locking range of scalpels at the moment, it feels realistic but I would like to see vehicle countermeasures like smoke be made more effective at blocking or disrupting a laser or thermal lock to kind of balance out their effective range. Be good if smoke screen deployment was a bit more vigorous for vehicles as well.

 

I wouldn't count on balance, since it's a mission designer's job to balance the things. The content configs should be realistic, not balanced.

As of sensors, increasing the thermal and visual sensor ranges would be useless if not backed up by object visibility, which is 4000 m at max on medium machine now. Keep in mind that Arma 3 aerial warfare is scaled down because of island dimensions. Smoke screen blocks the lasers by now. If not, it could be fixed with small config mods. Skalpels? Give you more advantage? Only if you find such nonexisting thing as a good JTAC in Arma MP. People never use them xD

 

Back to the topic, @oukej, what air and ground vehicles will have visualTargetSize and irTargetSize of 1? It'd be good to have a measurement point for configuring our vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cenwulf said:

 

Ah, that does sound like a bug in that case, possibly the laser "hit box" (for lack of a better phrase) covering up the thermal hit box and preventing the macer  from locking directly. Does it work if you try using a key bound to the "next target" action rather than the "target" action?

 

"Next target" doesn't seem to work if I'm pointing at the target with only the pod. I think for "next target" to work the target needs to be in the macer lock on cone or otherwise identified? About your theory, the laser doesn't interfere with the final locking procedure of the macer, if the target is  "vehicle" (or more specific) on the sensor screen. It's just comes up there as "laser target" most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dragon01 said:

I hope that BIS simply removes the lock-on ability from Scalpel. It should be completely laser-guided, without the need to "lock on" to the laser. Locking on only makes sense with thermal or visual guidance.

 

How do you have a laser guided missile that doesnt lock onto the laser target?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It flies onto the nearest laser target. I believe that's how it works like right now, and how it worked in ArmA2. "Locking onto" a laser is stupid - in reality, the missile will simply go into whatever direction the laser reflection is coming from (in fact, IRL, aircraft generally can't track lasers at all). Same goes for laser guided bombs. You don't need to "target" a laser, heck, you don't even need to see it. If you've got somebody on the ground (or another aircraft) painting the target, you could lob Hellfires from behind a hill and there'd be a good chance they'd find the laser after clearing the hill and successfully guide. Laser-guided arty shells are the best example of that.

 

Of course, the lack of lockon time is that not only you need to paint the target somehow, you need to keep it painted, too. If self-designating, you've essentially got yourself a SACLOS missile that announces itself to everyone with an LWR (unless you're willing to launch the missile and then turn on the laser, hoping that it'll catch it and guide). If not... well, better hope that whoever is holding the designator has a steady hand and isn't easily distracted. :) 

 

The biggest problem is, it's rather difficult to self-designate with an AI gunner. That could be solved by doing kind of what RHS did - pilot would have full control over pylon-mounted weapons, while the gunner would have the turret with the laser and guns. The pilot could order the gunner to target something and lase it, then fire a missile and have it guide to target. It'd certainly be easier than having to switch between missiles and the designator (also, it would allow fine control over when the gunner turns on the laser).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The laser system is the same as Arma 2. The only difference is that Arma 3 now requires the pilot to put the aircrafton the correct angle of attack while in Arma 2 you could just release from anywhere as long as it was within range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dragon01 said:

It flies onto the nearest laser target. I believe that's how it works like right now, and how it worked in ArmA2. "Locking onto" a laser is stupid - in reality, the missile will simply go into whatever direction the laser reflection is coming from (in fact, IRL, aircraft generally can't track lasers at all). Same goes for laser guided bombs. You don't need to "target" a laser, heck, you don't even need to see it. If you've got somebody on the ground (or another aircraft) painting the target, you could lob Hellfires from behind a hill and there'd be a good chance they'd find the laser after clearing the hill and successfully guide. Laser-guided arty shells are the best example of that.

 

Thats not how it is always done. The russian AT-16 Scallion 9M127K is a laser beam riding missile. It has the laser sensor in the back of the missile looking backwards at the launcheing plattform. Thats way the laser can be of lesser energy and laser warning does not go off as easily. it also makes the whole missile system smaller and cheaper allowing it to encourage the pilots to fire missiles in timed pairs to maximise the chance to defeat hardkill systems.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dragon01 said:

It flies onto the nearest laser target. I believe that's how it works like right now, and how it worked in ArmA2. "Locking onto" a laser is stupid - in reality, the missile will simply go into whatever direction the laser reflection is coming from (in fact, IRL, aircraft generally can't track lasers at all). Same goes for laser guided bombs. You don't need to "target" a laser, heck, you don't even need to see it. If you've got somebody on the ground (or another aircraft) painting the target, you could lob Hellfires from behind a hill and there'd be a good chance they'd find the laser after clearing the hill and successfully guide. Laser-guided arty shells are the best example of that.

 

Of course, the lack of lockon time is that not only you need to paint the target somehow, you need to keep it painted, too. If self-designating, you've essentially got yourself a SACLOS missile that announces itself to everyone with an LWR (unless you're willing to launch the missile and then turn on the laser, hoping that it'll catch it and guide). If not... well, better hope that whoever is holding the designator has a steady hand and isn't easily distracted. :) 

 

The biggest problem is, it's rather difficult to self-designate with an AI gunner. That could be solved by doing kind of what RHS did - pilot would have full control over pylon-mounted weapons, while the gunner would have the turret with the laser and guns. The pilot could order the gunner to target something and lase it, then fire a missile and have it guide to target. It'd certainly be easier than having to switch between missiles and the designator (also, it would allow fine control over when the gunner turns on the laser).

 

Don't see what's the fuss personally, autoSeekTarget = 1 + zero locking distance will do the trick just fine. If you're so horny you want to screw with off-FOVlaser guidance IRL, you must synchronize the frequency the missile seeks with the frequency of that laser designator. Otherwise it could never aquire the lock or aquire wrong target. And yes, you must align yor launching platform so that missile FOV would be on the target. Especially for the bombs.

And yeah, the most of NATO aircrafts (well, all except of F-15C) are capable of carrying targeting pods, and, hence, to track the laser marks. Russian ones and their derivatives have to rely on built-in systems, so it depends. Su-34 and Su-25, all the current fighter-bombers they use have the laser sensors.

 

 

 

There are pretty neat examples. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you need to align the seeker, but it boils down to just pointing it the right way. Frequency syncing is not one of those things ArmA models. I think it just assumes all laser-guided ordnance uses the same frequency (or, at best, that each side has its own frequency). The videos also show what I'm talking about. Just point and shoot, no "lock on" as with IR-guided missiles.

1 hour ago, Beagle said:

Thats not how it is always done. The russian AT-16 Scallion 9M127K is a laser beam riding missile. It has the laser sensor in the back of the missile looking backwards at the launcheing plattform. Thats way the laser can be of lesser energy and laser warning does not go off as easily. it also makes the whole missile system smaller and cheaper allowing it to encourage the pilots to fire missiles in timed pairs to maximise the chance to defeat hardkill systems.

That's not what I'm talking about. 9M127K Vikhr a SACLOS missile. It's not "laser guided" in ArmA sense, as it can't use a designator and doesn't illuminate the target. It just uses a laser to relay target data from the launch platform to the missile. Others use radio uplink (Ataka-V) or even a wire (TOW) to achieve the exact same results. From ArmA standpoint, it'd work like any other SACLOS missile.

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

×