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

[twistking 204]

it would be great, if the pcml would not be auto-locking anymore, but inertia-guided, like the real thing. not only realistic, but would be a great game mechanic also...

[zero_z77 3]

Here's an idea i'd like to see added with the Jets DLC:

Anti-Radiation Missiles. (Yes it's a real thing). These missiles use passive radar to hone in on thier target and are often employed by ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 and Su-25T to eliminate enemy Anti-Aircraft Radars and SAM Sites.

 

It would also be nice to be able to track basic radio signals (precicely for vehicles, imprecisely for ground units like only accurate to within 50m) and have the option to enable/disable radios, GPS etc.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

2 hours ago, zero_z77 said:

Here's an idea i'd like to see added with the Jets DLC:

Anti-Radiation Missiles. (Yes it's a real thing). These missiles use passive radar to hone in on thier target and are often employed by ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 and Su-25T to eliminate enemy Anti-Aircraft Radars and SAM Sites.

 

It would also be nice to be able to track basic radio signals (precicely for vehicles, imprecisely for ground units like only accurate to within 50m) and have the option to enable/disable radios, GPS etc.

 

If you read the last few pages of this very thread you will see that someone from the community has already done that.

[ampersand38 344]

21 hours ago, oukej said:

Correct. The PCML ammo is the first to use a sensor component and also to utilize some of the other new properties for limiting lock angles, range and speed. To work well all in all the missile performance has been slightly tweaked as well.

 

 

Seems to work alright. Sometimes it seems to take a few seconds for the missile to recognize a target, which could make sense.

[R3vo 2654]

Can anyone tell me how I activate the radar? The new keybindings confuse me...

[domokun 515]

Well done BI.

I think that looks MUCH better.

So can anyone who's ever fired a Javelin or other fire-and-forget AT missile confirm the accuracy of the CLU's targetting performance?

[oukej 2910]

PCML in current configuration is based on NLAW performance.

Spoiler

 

Except of - as u already mentioned - the guidance :) That is abstracted as a vis. sensor (unlike Titan's IR. Mentioning Titan - that one would be closer to Javelin). We don't have the tech to simulate PLOS.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

38 minutes ago, R3vo said:

Can anyone tell me how I activate the radar? The new keybindings confuse me...

 

I think the default keybind is Ctrl+R, if it isn't, there is an entry in the keyboard controls that you can set up, it might not yet be localized. You can only do it on vehicles that actually have that capability.

[teabagginpeople 398]

55 minutes ago, R3vo said:

Can anyone tell me how I activate the radar? The new keybindings confuse me...

The bindings are in control options weapons- radar on/off.

 

as noted it is not available on all. for instance the A10 wipeout has radar active no disabling option(if that is intentional). but the Blackfoot can disable its radar. same goes for some vehicles.

[dragon01 902]

Actually, IIRC the Wipeout shouldn't have radar at all. It has passive sensors, but not active radar. Sensors can't be turned off because they are passive, like IR or contrast sensors.

[comp_uter15776 1]

2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Actually, IIRC the Wipeout shouldn't have radar at all. It has passive sensors, but not active radar. Sensors can't be turned off because they are passive, like IR or contrast sensors.

 

This is quite incorrect.

It's current implementation allows for fairly accurate tracking of other aircraft which would be highly reliant on RADAR and not IR or otherwise. It would be also how altitude would be calculated if not via a barometric calibration. Additionally passive sensors can be turned off, as can just about most systems in modern aircraft (and especially futuristic ones). Given that ArmA 3 is set in 2035, it would be extremely unusual to find such a high tech aircraft without some form of radar capability anyway.

 

Edit:

 

Also, reading back to the OP, I would have to say I prefer the previous symbology (or at least, some kind of differentiation) with respect to confirmed allied/enemy contacts. It's another aiding factor to be able to recognise that in scenarios where you must maintain high SA, you haven't buddy spiked/are aware of those 3 bogeys/etc. I prefer the NV spot too, I think there's actually less ambiguity there (the hemisphere representing ground with the flared lines suggesting spotting). If I'm flying and quickly glance at my SOI to see the red crosshair, I would rather not have to take that extra small step of mentally analysing if it is the laser or NV spot.

 

Back to symbology, the affiliation being tied not only to colour but also shape is how NATO goes about it too (which I presume is where you derived inspiration from). Hemisphere for friendly air, square for neutral/friendly ground (no need to overcomplicate here), triangle for enemy air and finally diamond for enemy ground. I've omitted seaborne and subsurface because I doubt you'd implement sensing these assets anyway.

[x3kj 1247]

17 minutes ago, comp_uter15776 said:

Additionally passive sensors can be turned off, as can just about most systems in modern aircraft (and especially futuristic ones).

You can also hold your breath until you pass out... its just pretty pointless.

 

[comp_uter15776 1]

3 minutes ago, x3kj said:

You can also hold your breath until you pass out... its just pretty pointless.

 

In real-life scenarios you might want to turn off say, the GPWS because you are engaging in NOE flight, or alternatively if you are being consistently lit some kind of suppression of RWR is useful as there comes a point where you "get the idea" and it becomes nothing more than a distraction.

 

Of course, there are also emergency scenarios where you are looking to shed electrical load and such. 

[Primaate 5]

On 24/01/2017 at 7:26 PM, oukej said:

I'm sorry. We acknowledge the need of it but it's not planned.

 

[Primaate 5]

On 24/01/2017 at 7:26 PM, oukej said:

I'm sorry. We acknowledge the need of it but it's not planned.

What I'm excited about and believe in Arma long-term most of all is, eventually we 'may' have these attributes developed for the community. What other fps 'game' can offer anything like this!   Keep up the good work BIS : )

[madrussian 347]

Just read the whole thread, pretty amazed.  Keep going!

 

My big hope is for some stationary unmanned ground radar official assets (fully functional sensor system-wise) that can pass target info to friendlies, and thus be high-value targets themselves.  Large and mid-sized radar dishes with powerful long range detection.  Destroying one of these would have a huge impact on the given campaign/operation.  Seems possible, as we do have have UAVs after all.  (Perhaps more something for mods, which would be awesome too.)

 

[heavygunner 179]

Note: An over-fly-attack mode for the NLAW is already in the works for ace 3

https://github.com/acemod/ACE3/pull/4791

 

 

[TeTeT 1523]

Today I made a quick test with equipping an old plane that should not have powerful sensors (A-4) with a Shrike ARM. Unfortunately the missiles capabilities do not seem to 'override' the sensors of the plane. E.g. when I set minRange = 500 and maxRange = 500 in the GroundTarget section of PassiveRadarSensorComponent of the A-4, there is nothing detected and the Shrike missile cannot lock on. I did then increase the maxRange to 5000 and it worked again.

 

A feature request would be to 'lend' the missile's sensors capabilities to the plane, so an old radar and sensor less equipped plane could have a temporary upgrade via it's weaponry. Of course only if it doesn't throw the current sensors architecture overboard!

The working config is based on the EA-6B config and can be found here:

http://tetet.de/arma/arma3/Download/unsung/EA6B/uns_a4_sensors_c-Config.cpp

[dr. hladik 231]

On 1/26/2017 at 5:33 AM, madrussian said:

Just read the whole thread, pretty amazed.  Keep going!

 

My big hope is for some stationary unmanned ground radar official assets (fully functional sensor system-wise) that can pass target info to friendlies, and thus be high-value targets themselves.  Large and mid-sized radar dishes with powerful long range detection.  Destroying one of these would have a huge impact on the given campaign/operation.  Seems possible, as we do have have UAVs after all.  (Perhaps more something for mods, which would be awesome too.)

 

 

Something like this is being considered.

 

 

15 hours ago, TeTeT said:

Today I made a quick test with equipping an old plane that should not have powerful sensors (A-4) with a Shrike ARM. Unfortunately the missiles capabilities do not seem to 'override' the sensors of the plane. E.g. when I set minRange = 500 and maxRange = 500 in the GroundTarget section of PassiveRadarSensorComponent of the A-4, there is nothing detected and the Shrike missile cannot lock on. I did then increase the maxRange to 5000 and it worked again.

 

A feature request would be to 'lend' the missile's sensors capabilities to the plane, so an old radar and sensor less equipped plane could have a temporary upgrade via it's weaponry. Of course only if it doesn't throw the current sensors architecture overboard!

The working config is based on the EA-6B config and can be found here:

http://tetet.de/arma/arma3/Download/unsung/EA6B/uns_a4_sensors_c-Config.cpp

 

Vehicle and ammo sensors are independent. So you should be able to lock missile even if vehicle sensors does not see it (this is how  shoulder rocket launchers work.)

However you will lose some features. Target will not be shown on Radar, "find next target (R)" action will not find it and you will not be able to mark that target for other weapon (cannon). Manual lock (T) will still work.

[snoops_213 75]

2 hours ago, dr. hladik said:

 

Something like this is being considered.

 

 

 

Really? that sounds awesome. If the AI could do this with with Radar + SAM/AAA, it could later be looked at for a AI based artillery system maybe? 

 

[.kju 3244]

Quote

• Fixed: Marked targets would remain marked even after switching weapons / vehicles
• Tweaked: The "Next Target" switch now works only with vehicle sensors

 

Can we get more context on these one please

[comp_uter15776 1]

8 hours ago, dr. hladik said:

 

Something like this is being considered.

 

 

 

Vehicle and ammo sensors are independent. So you should be able to lock missile even if vehicle sensors does not see it (this is how  shoulder rocket launchers work.)

However you will lose some features. Target will not be shown on Radar, "find next target (R)" action will not find it and you will not be able to mark that target for other weapon (cannon). Manual lock (T) will still work.

 

Will we see programmable CMS/loadouts? For example, a kind of DTC (data transfer cartridge) could hold the weaponry selections but also countermeasure profiles; as with the enhancements to sensors naturally chaff would be more beneficial versus RADAR and flares for IR (and if you really went all out, RF decoys for magnetic signatures).

 

The following video sums up some current-gen capabilities of DASS (Defensive Aids Sub-System) well, so I think they would fit well within the confines of a near-futuristic scenario:

 

The video does also touch on the variety of SAM/RADAR functionality, i.e. having a FCR but also LAS RADAR that could greatly increase the potency of the SA-10s demonstrated in this video, but any networked air defense.

 

Thus, you could have:

• Integrated mobile SAM/RADAR (i.e. SA-6)
• Networked SAMs (i.e. SA-300) - dependent on targeting and surveillance RADAR assets
• Surveillance RADAR (i.e. 76N6 CLAM SHELL) - for initial detection of aircraft
• Target tracking (FCR) RADAR (30N6 FLAP LID) - for target illumination and guidance
• MANPADs (think Titan AA)

[Jack Ost 124]

There will be some commands to set Radar On/Off, to change/force radar range, etc ?

 

Otherwise, there is a small problem on the gui with radar numbers : http://hpics.li/38b31e5

[SuicideKing 233]

I've lost this post twice. Expect generous use of bullet points.

 

Context:

• I haven't been able to try out dev branch, because I don't have enough disk space.
• Most of my information comes from discussions with @chortles
• I have been following developments on this thread and in the A3 Discord server's #arma_gameplay channel.
• Based on all of this, I have some observations, comments and suggestions to make.

 

Distinguish Passive Radar and RWR

• An RWR or Radar Warning Receiver provides a warning of radars in the area, their direction, power, type of radar and a guess at the type of system (not the exact vehicle).
• An RWR, via beeping tones, warns of search radars, radar lock, and whether the enemy radar is in guidance mode (i.e. is a missile in flight towards you).
• For example: Su-25 (p.14), Viggen, A-10C (p.410)
• Note that the A-10's display relates detected intensity to proximity. From what i've gathered about the current incarnation of the radar system (in dev branch of course) is that power/intensity of the radar is not modeled, but an abstract range is considered. This is fine, but then this has gameplay implications and considerations.

 

All things considered, you should perhaps not call it a RWR, and call it passive radar only.

 

Suggestions for an actual RWR

• You could also consider implementing a simpler passive radar that just shows direction of potential threats, and beeps when a missile is incoming (there should be a tone difference between a radar guided and IR missile).
• Even if you want a display (like in the A-10 example above), this should not allow locking of targets/lead indicators (since it's an RWR, not a passive radar thing).

 

Tweak the logic behind passive radar detection

• From the preceding section it transpires that A3's radar detection system depends on abstracted range instead of source power. 
• It also seems from discussions I've had that passive radar has range of its own.
• This feels odd, as passive radar can't technically have range (as it's passive), just perhaps a threshold or sensitivity.

 

Given this, i suggest an alternate way of doing things, that'll be more in line with real-world logic:

• Passive radar doesn't have range (or alternatively, has infinite range, depending on how you'll need to config it for the game)
• If the aircraft is in a radius that's the active radar's range + 50% of that range, then it'll be able to pick up the radar, otherwise not.

 

See Figure 2 below

Fig 1.
 

Fig 2.
 

 

It doesn't have to be +50%, you can make it more (75%, 100%). Logic of 50% was vague memories from college that "half power bandwidth" (i.e. -3dB) was somehow important. (I don't do anything related to electronics and communications engineering anymore).
 

Which vehicles should get Passive Radar (i.e. not just an RWR)?

• Preferably only aircraft that have SEAD capabilites.
• In my mind only the Buzzard, Neophron, Mi-48, Blackfoot qualify as potentially having such capabilities.

 

Which vehicles should get an RWR (i.e. NOT passive radar)?

• All planes + Transport helicopters except the Hellcat and Littlebird
• Hellcat should only retain the IR missile launch warning thing.
• Littlebird shouldn't get anything of this sort, it's way too small and has no space for a radar of any sort. Nor does it have countermeasures, anyway.

 

Which vehicles should get active radar?

• Buzzard, Neophron, Blackfoot, Cheetah, Tigris
• Buzzard (CAS), Neophron, Blackfoot should not be able to lock their IR missiles on to a radar target until it is in IR sensor range. They can get lead indicators, though.
• Decide whether or not the AA units have radar missiles! The real world Tungushka for example does not (afaik).

 

Missile Guidance
I'm going to reference Wargame terminology, so keep this handy: http://wargame-series.wikia.com/wiki/Weapons

 

Currently (stable branch) all guided wepons in Arma seem to follow some sort of SALH or F&F mechanism, with limited SACLOS on Titans, gunship ATGMs. This saps the challange (and fun) out of gameplay.

 

I'd really love to see things shuffled around. What I would recommend is:

• Titan AT = F&F (IR + Optical guidance), SACLOS/GUID backup. Locking should work similarly to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin#Seeker (top down mode too, pls :P )
• Titan HE = SACLOS/GUID
• Titan AA = IR guidance, SACLOS/GUID backup
• PCML = SLAH, SA. Require either person who fired to remain locked and in LOS, or require third party laser designation. I know you're going for a more FGM-172 SRAW feel instead of the M-47 Dragon, but it's not interesting. I wouldn't complain if BLUFOR had unguided light AT, but it doesn't.
• Aircraft ATGM = IR/laser for acquisition, SLAH, SA. Same as above.
• Helicopter ATGM Type 1 = IR/laser for acquisition, SLAH, SA. Same as above.
• Helicopter ATGM Type 2 = SACLOS, GUID
• IR Air-to-Air = F&F
• IR SAM = F&F
• Radar Air-to-Air Type 1 = RAD, F&F
• Radar Air-to-Air Type 2 = RAD, SA
• Radar SAM = RAD, SA
• ARM = SEAD, F&F. Switching off radar should make missile go dumb.

Side note: Gunship turrets shake too much for SACLOS to be viable, even in still autohover.

 

AI Using GUID weapons
AI using GUID missiles should be subject to hit rolls like in Wargame. Suppression, morale, vetrenecy should affect this.

 

I'm still skeptical about visual sensors

• IMO half the game is knowing where to look for stuff and being able to spot it
• Visual sensors do the player's work of actually looking at things, not good for gameplay imo.
• Fine for weapon systems (locking and stuff, where applicable).
• Same applies to IR sensors, you're doing the work for the player, night vision and thermal vision modes already exist for this.
• Allowing these for targeting, locking and lead indication is fine, but let the player actually do the task of finding and designating targets.

 

Given above points, I would urge to you to consider making visual and IR sensor displays independent server difficulty settings.

 

How will day/night affect sensors?

• Will visual sensors be impaired at night?
• Will IR sensors be impaired in the day?

 

"Ground" Radar

• From what i can tell, ground radar is more for terrain avoidance than targeting. May be a good idea to skip this if it's going to end up too gamey.
• Remember, going to the #future makes for dull gameplay. To reference a discussion with chortles, this may be #authentic but it's not fun.

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

 

I've spent so long at this that i can't remember if there was anything else to be written. I'd encourage you to watch this video:

 

It's a dogfight in DCS. Annotations indicate what's going on. Notice how sensors and strategies integrate, and how NOT knowing everything affects gameplay. The end of the Viggen video linked in the ground radar section has a cool display of various weapon systems and how they work too, it's interesting, give it a watch.

 

@oukej here, I've written an essay for you to read on a monday morning :P

Edited January 31, 2017 by SuicideKing
Formatting, spelling

[dr. hladik 231]

> passive sensors

It works as you are suggesting (only difference is that passive detection zone is 2x active detection zone). Passive sensor range just tells to what distance I'm able to lock on that target and to limit number of objects I need to test (to save some performance)

 

> visual sensor

It is just another possibility. We still plan to tweak it (or any other) according to feedback.