Tanks - Fire-control system

[x3kj 1247]

12 hours ago, Damian90 said:

M2A1/M2A4 Slammer should have around 8000 rounds for their coaxial machine guns.

Maybe realistic, but not sensible for the game.

RL ground vehicles are designed and equipped for some combat mission of length X before needing resupply, where X far exceeds the playsessions of Arma players. This would result in certain ammunition practically never running out -> resupply vehicles are useless, no considerations over conservation of ammo needs to be made by players .

You could just look at what the fuel situation was (before recent dev changes)- it never ran out for ground vehicles, because duration far exceeded length of even very long missions -> barely anybody ever needed refueling (exceptions beeing air vehicles).

[Damian90 696]

1 minute ago, x3kj said:

Maybe realistic, but not sensible for the game.

RL vehicles are designed for some combat mission of length X before needing resupply, where X far exceeds the playsessions of Arma players. This would result in certain ammunition practically never running out -> resupply vehicles are useless, conservation of ammo would be useless.

You could just look at what the fuel situation was (before recent dev changes)- it never ran out for ground vehicles, because duration far exceeded length of even very long missions -> barely anybody ever needed refueling (exceptions beeing air vehicles).

 

I do not see a problem here, considering ressuply vehicles always will be needed, for example for rearming main gun ammunition.

 

And I am far more in to realism than artificial balance and making games more arcade. ;)

 

Besides in RHS we have realistic ammunition loadouts, for example our Abrams takes around 12000 rounds for it's 7.62mm coax, and still ammo trucks are needed. ;)

[x3kj 1247]

Just now, Damian90 said:

And I am far more in to realism than artificial balance and making games more arcade. ;)

That may be so, but who benefits from this? The game? Or you, because it gives you the mental satisfaction of knowing "this statistic matches with my datasheets"? There is a limit up to which point realism is usefull vs. when it negatively impacts the experience, a double edged sword. Do you want to press buttons in some quicktime event for 30min to simulate how changing a broken track keeps you occupied, in front of your screen? I would think not.

[scavenjer 112]

18 minutes ago, x3kj said:

That may be so, but who benefits from this? The game? Or you, because it gives you the mental satisfaction of knowing "this statistic matches with my datasheets"? There is a limit up to which point realism is usefull vs. when it negatively impacts the experience, a double edged sword. Do you want to press buttons in some quicktime event for 30min to simulate how changing a broken track keeps you occupied, in front of your screen? I would think not.

Eh TBH, most APCs and IFVs are left by the wayside because of a severely limited ammo capacity, I'm definitely in favour of increasing it as currently it's almost as if you need to make every shell hit the target with sniper like precision...

 

Considering the accuracy tweaks that also has become much more difficult.

 

IMHO the current longevity or combat usefulness is severely limited with the LAVs and most of the time people tend to choose an MBT over them.

 

This could change that and diversify the vehicles we see on the battlefield.

Also, only two titan ATs on a fully loaded 20-30 ton IFV compared to three on an infantryman is a bit silly don't you think?

[Damian90 696]

33 minutes ago, x3kj said:

That may be so, but who benefits from this? The game? Or you, because it gives you the mental satisfaction of knowing "this statistic matches with my datasheets"? There is a limit up to which point realism is usefull vs. when it negatively impacts the experience, a double edged sword. Do you want to press buttons in some quicktime event for 30min to simulate how changing a broken track keeps you occupied, in front of your screen? I would think not.

 

And then again, Arma never was and still is not a game for a casual gamer. As someone who was with the game series from the very beggining I was disgusted that things like Arma life and other bollocks were created and stained the series.

 

Artificial balance is a very bad thing, it destroys immersion as well as challenge to the game and it's diversity.

[R3vo 2652]

I have to agree. The amount of ammuntion most APCs carry in Arma 3 is far too low. They run dry very quickly. That's why I hoped we would get a dynamic system to change to ammunition amount of every vehicle in the editor.

[Strike_NOR 898]

Well guys, it's been fun, but we are way off topic :) This ammunition capacity debate is better suited for the "General Discussion" section, or as a new thread in the devbranch forum. It is indeed, an important subject, and I agree completely that the ammunition capacity must increase to a sweet spot where realism meets ArmA functionality. A decent way of balancing this is to introduce some long reload times to ammo boxes. Also, like @x3kj has pointed out, the ArmA3 logistics system is currently kinda unpolished. I have only used the supply vehicles in any of my scenarios or missions for either:

 

• Target practice
• Convoys (where they only play a role as high value targets)
• FARP (Forward Arming Refueling Point) for helicopters.

I never use them to actively move a resource from point A to B, in order to keep B combat-effective (which is kind of what logistics is all about or?) And maybe this is due to their lack of significance in a gameplay-wise way. I wish this was looked into further.

 

However, has anyone noticed any bugs with the FCS lasing in recent devbranch builds?

 

After the component armor system was introduced, I get very strange behavior where initially, the FCS will retrieve range and speed of a target, but after a few attempts, the FCS suddenly glitches and does not detect the vehicle(s) in my crosshairs at all. It keeps getting me the background range and speed (0). If I restart the scenario, it works again, but only for the first few "lase" attempts.

Tested in VR map only, on both stationary and moving targets, with different FCS equipped vehicles.

 

 

[scavenjer 112]

6 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

@x3kj

 

Huh... When I did my armour testing with the diag tool I didn't have that happening, in the virtual world too.

I'll see if it happens when I do my next round of testing.

[x3kj 1247]

9 hours ago, scavenjer said:

Eh TBH, most APCs and IFVs are left by the wayside because of a severely limited ammo capacity, I'm definitely in favour of increasing it as currently it's almost as if you need to make every shell hit the target with sniper like precision...

I dont have anything against increasing Ammo, but within reasonable limits so that ammo is still a concern and ammo trucks not window dressing. 8000 rounds for Tank MG is just ridiculous for a 1-2h playsession for example.

 

9 hours ago, Damian90 said:

And then again, Arma never was and still is not a game for a casual gamer. [...]Artificial balance is a very bad thing, it destroys immersion as well as challenge to the game and it's diversity.

What destroys challenge and immersion? Does it increase the challenge, immersion and realism when you don't have to worry about ammo, because you can hammer out 8000 rounds that are actually meant for 24h of operation (or whatever it is that the planners have used as metric) in a 1h session? How is that realistic? Does it increase challenge, immersion and mission diversity when you have no need for ammo or fuel resupply?   Also, the 30min repair time thing... its funny how people demanding more and more realism are always (usually unconciously) very selective about what they are demanding - which just proves my point: Realism is only good if it benefits the game/gameplay, when it introduces new challenges or interesting systems. When it does the opposite it should not be taken at face value. I also want realism. But i can differentiate between "beneficial realism" and the opposite.

[jakeplissken 77]

On 3/8/2018 at 10:47 AM, Damian90 said:

@oukej

 

One important note before Tanks DLC will be released, and it's a simple config adjustement. It's connected either with vehicles damage and firepower, so if it's not a proper topic please move it in to proper one.

 

So the the point. Vehicles in general should have at least several reloads of ammunition for their machine guns or autocannons. Just an example.

 

M2A1/M2A4 Slammer should have around 8000 rounds for their coaxial machine guns.

 

APC's like IFV-6c Panther or MSE-3 Marid, at least something like 2000-4000 machine gun rounds and around 500 or more 40mm GMG rounds.

 

IFV's like AMV-7, Kamysh, Mora and in general IFV's armed with autocannon, coaxial MG and optional ATGM's should have something like 400 to 900 30mm or 40mm autocannon rounds, for example ratio can be like 50/50 in some designs, or a different ratio where for example we have 70 AP to 230 HE rounds (it's just an example ratio) as existing vehicle magazines can be used. I will give an example.

 

If AMV-7 have:

 

1x 60Rnd_40mm_GPR_Tracer_Red_shells

1x 40Rnd_40mm_APFSDS_Tracer_Red_shells

1x 2000Rnd_65x39_belt

1x SmokeLauncherMag

 

It should look like this:

 

5x 60Rnd_40mm_GPR_Tracer_Red_shells

5x 40Rnd_40mm_APFSDS_Tracer_Red_shells

2x 2000Rnd_65x39_belt

2x SmokeLauncherMag

 

In such case vehicle have increased survivability because it's ammunition won't go dry too fast, it will gain in time of which it can stay on the battlefield, and also gain in terms of firepower. It's also far more realistic.

 

I will provide here other examples, how ammo storage should look like.

 

IFV-6c:

 

1x 96Rnd_40mm_G_belt

1x 500Rnd_127x99_mag_Tracer_Red

1x SmokeLauncherMag

 

After adjustement:

 

5x 96Rnd_40mm_G_belt

4x 500Rnd_127x99_mag_Tracer_Red

2x SmokeLauncherMag

 

M2A1 Slammer:

 

1x 32Rnd_120mm_APFSDS_shells_Tracer_Red

1x 16Rnd_120mm_HE_shells_Tracer_Red

2x 2000Rnd_65x39_belt

1x SmokeLauncherMag

 

(Note!!! A real Merkava Mk4M stores 64 rounds of ammunition for it's 120mm gun, suggestion is to increase HE rounds from 16 to 30 or 32.)

 

After adjustement:

 

1x 32Rnd_120mm_APFSDS_shells_Tracer_Red

1x 16Rnd_120mm_HE_shells_Tracer_Red (Preferable increase to 30/32 HE rounds : 1x 30/32Rnd_120mm_HE_shells_Tracer_Red)

4x 2000Rnd_65x39_belt

2x SmokeLauncherMag

 

M2A4 Slammer UP:

 

1x 40Rnd_105mm_APFSDS_T_Red

1x 20Rnd_105mm_HEAT_MP_T_Red

2x 2000Rnd_65x39_belt

2x 500Rnd_127x99_mag_Tracer_Red

1x SmokeLauncherMag

 

After adjustement:

 

1x 40Rnd_105mm_APFSDS_T_Red

1x 20Rnd_105mm_HEAT_MP_T_Red

4x 2000Rnd_65x39_belt

2x 500Rnd_127x99_mag_Tracer_Red

2x SmokeLauncherMag

 

Mora:

 

1x 140Rnd_30mm_MP_shells_Tracer_Yellow

1x 60Rnd_30mm_APFSDS_shells_Tracer_Yellow

2x 1000Rnd_762x51_Belt_Yellow

1x SmokeLauncherMag

 

After adjustement:

 

5x 140Rnd_30mm_MP_shells_Tracer_Yellow

5x 60Rnd_30mm_APFSDS_shells_Tracer_Yellow

2x 1000Rnd_762x51_Belt_Yellow

2x SmokeLauncherMag

 

Gorgon:

 

1x 140Rnd_30mm_MP_shells_Tracer_Yellow

1x 60Rnd_30mm_APFSDS_shells_Tracer_Yellow

1x 1000Rnd_65x39_Belt_Yellow

1x 2Rnd_GAT_missiles

1x SmokeLauncherMag

 

After Adjustement:

 

5x 140Rnd_30mm_MP_shells_Tracer_Yellow

5x 60Rnd_30mm_APFSDS_shells_Tracer_Yellow

2x 1000Rnd_65x39_Belt_Yellow

2x 2Rnd_GAT_missiles

2x SmokeLauncherMag

 

Kamysh:

 

1x 140Rnd_30mm_MP_shells_Tracer_Green

1x 60Rnd_30mm_APFSDS_shells_Tracer_Green

1x 1000Rnd_65x39_Belt_Green

1x 2Rnd_GAT_missiles

1x SmokeLauncherMag

 

After adjustement:

 

5x 140Rnd_30mm_MP_shells_Tracer_Green

5x 60Rnd_30mm_APFSDS_shells_Tracer_Green

2x 1000Rnd_65x39_Belt_Green

2x 2Rnd_GAT_missiles

2x SmokeLauncherMag

 

Marid:

 

1x 96Rnd_40mm_G_belt

1x 500Rnd_127x99_mag_Tracer_Green

1x SmokeLauncherMag

 

After adjustement:

 

5x 96Rnd_40mm_G_belt

4x 500Rnd_127x99_mag_Tracer_Green

2x SmokeLauncherMag

 

Various armed MRAPs like Hunter, Ifrit and Strider also should have increased ammo loadouts for 5x of their mags for reloads.

 

It should be a quiet simple task by simply copy pasting this in to vehicle configs, but I think would be most welcome by players as usefull and also realistic improvement. Cheers.

 

PS. Oh and by the way, the magazine reload itself can be adjusted so it won't be instant and will force players to find a calm, covered spot to reload their vehicles weapons.

 

For the AMV-7.

 

{_this select 1 addMagazineTurret ["40Rnd_40mm_APFSDS_shells",[0]]} foreach [1,3];
{_this select 1 addMagazineTurret ["60Rnd_40mm_GPR_shells",[0]]} foreach [1,3];
{_this select 1 addMagazineTurret ["2000Rnd_65x39_Belt_Tracer_Green",[0]]} foreach [1,3];

 

[fallschirmjgergewehr 1]

AFV's loadout is not suited in this topic so we need talk in other topic

But I think incresing Magazine in AFV is good idea.

Because Vehicle' magazine can't increase in editor on GUI(you need some script). But If you don't want to increase, you can decrease in GUI. additionaly, realistic.

[oukej 2910]

Increasing mag count is actually planned :)

[Strike_NOR 898]

20 minutes ago, oukej said:

Increasing mag count is actually planned :)

 

Great news :) Thanks for the heads up! Have a splendid™ weekend (soon™)

[the_one_and_only_Venator 162]

1 hour ago, oukej said:

Increasing mag count is actually planned :)

 

While doing that please consider adding laser designators to other vehicles.

Especially to helicopters like the Wildcat and the Blackfoot.

[dragon01 902]

Blackfoot got one already. Dunno about the others, but in a recent changelog there was a note about the gunships getting LDs.

[twistking 204]

oukej, did you consider the possibility for the gunner to lock turret or disable stabilization?

i realize, that it may be a little bit late to develop this as a full blown "feature" with ui implementation and custom animation, but i think it would still be reasonable to add it as a "raw" mechanic, since it could be done in a way, that f.e. left mosue click would disengage the function. in that way new players would not be confused, if they entered turret lock by accident.

(like the infantry "lower weapon" mechanic that is probably unfamiliar to new players, but can't really confuse anyone since it's getting canceled anyway when trying to shoot...)

 

the main reasons for having "turret lock" or disabling of stabilization:

- realistic looking tank manouvering in non-combat situation

- no need for the gunner to constantly pan to keep the gun at 12 o clock when cruising

- better awareness of heading/vehicle movement for the commander when navigating while being turned out

[vitdom 5]

I encountered a zeroing problem when testing the DEV-branch.

When zeroing the GPR-T rounds shot from the Marshall, above 2,500 - 3,500 m the target elevation is much lower than it should be.

If this issue makes it in the 1.82 RC I will also submit a report to the Feedback tracker.

[froggyluv 2130]

Confused here: So now when im playing as either Tank Commander or Driver, my Gunner is never taking the shot  -period? It used to be you give him a target and he either fires or waits for the 3-1 Fire command but now it seems i have to hit the LMB Fire myself whilst im focused on also driving ?? This cant be right..

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

On 3/8/2018 at 6:03 AM, wattywatts said:

 

 

We considered this variant, but in the end it won't be included in the release.

 

Is there a possibility of seeing new variants of existing vehicles / statics post-release of Tanks DLC?

[lexx 1332]

Yeah, that's what I was wondering as well. "not included in the release" means never, or maybe later? :>

 

[SuicideKing 233]

On 3/9/2018 at 10:40 AM, oukej said:

Increasing mag count is actually planned :)

hmm. I'd be cautious about making it straight up 5x 2000 round mags, etc. though. Vehicles get a ton of kills in coop missions anyway, and there's only like ~150 AI that can be feasibly used without caching systems. I don't know what the right answer is - at least in platoon level ops there's a higher likelihood of the vehicle getting killed than of its machine gun ammo running out.

[Ex3B 265]

On 3/8/2018 at 1:17 PM, x3kj said:

You could just look at what the fuel situation was (before recent dev changes)- it never ran out for ground vehicles, because duration far exceeded length of even very long missions -> barely anybody ever needed refueling (exceptions beeing air vehicles).

When did these fuel changes take place, and what vehicles did they affect? I ask because I had to use a script to refil and SDV fuel tank on a mission I made. The SDV doesn't even have enough fuel to start at the mouth of Zaros bay, then go north-Northeast to the main large beach (or even the rocky outcrop to the east of the main beach, for a stealthier insertion), and then back out to the mouth of the bay for exfiltration at the end of the mission.

 

Also, even in Arma 2, driving from one end of chernarus to the other in a car would just about empty its tank, even though that is only about 15km.

[scavenjer 112]

@oukej

I very much like increasing magazine count for the APCs and changing the general loadout for AFVs, though I've noticed that most MBts now only have 400 or even 200 rounds of .50cal RCWS, I assume that's due for a change?

Another thing I've noticed which is more on-topic and something that I'm pretty sure was mentioned back when the FCS for tanks was changed: tank FCS with the new range of 4-5km looks great BUT...

https://streamable.com/0fqoe

As you can see, when zeroing to 5km and using HE the shell leaves the barrel at an extreme angle, is it at all possible to make the barrel (visually) elevate when using zeroing or lasing a target?

I remember you guys asked us for feedback back when you changed the FCS methods, IIIRC there was a choice between having the current FCS for tanks which meant visual discrepancy or having the FCS act like the one on the AA's currently does with a CCIP.

 

Can you verify/ explain the different possibilities?

 

I know you guys are very pressed for time and the update is coming out soon, so if it cannot be done in time that's OK by me, but I bet people will notice and sooner or later you'll get this question (if it hasn't been asked before).

[Strike_NOR 898]

@scavenjer

 

The way I see it. The current fcs tells the shot at which angle it should leave, so why shouldn't it be able to feed that angle directly to the barrel elevation animation - and feed the traverse angle to the turret traverse animation. 

 

Probably easier said than done.

[scavenjer 112]

Just now, Strike_NOR said:

@scavenjer

 

The way I see it. The current fcs tells the shot at which angle it should leave, so why shouldn't it be able to feed that angle directly to the barrel elevation animation - and feed the traverse angle to the turret traverse animation. 

 

Probably easier said than done.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but like you said, IDK how easy that would be, not to mention the speed at which you can change the elevation can be very high -> visual elevation speed also very high or possibly "jarring".