Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements

[SuicideKing 233]

Yeah my concern was more from seeing them go boom in one hit. Doesn't make for great gameplay, especially if you lose an entire squad and IFV to one random missile. I mean, it makes things far more deadly and tense, but it's not easy to balance in a large scale coop mission. The possibility to be able to deploy smoke and withdraw/evac is important to the feel and play of the mission, so it's more of a question of the best way of maintaining that, while making the PCML far more useful than it currently is in 1.80. I'm probably less concerned with how that's achieved, to be honest...

 

It's also that, according to SAAB:

Quote

Selectable Overfly Top Attack (OTA) against armoured targets and Direct Attack (DA) against non armoured targets such as other vehicles and vessels or enemy troops inside buildings.

which suggests that armoured targets should be able to withstand more hits from a direct mode, but I don't know the best way of translating that to light armour like IFVs, especially with flat sides. Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe they're assuming reactive armour?

 

Of course, i would be less concerned if we had an AT4 equivalent for NATO ;-)

[bars91 956]

The top armor is always the weaker one. Hence the top attack/airburst being more lethal.

[lex__1 422]

56 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

which suggests that armoured targets should be able to withstand more hits from a direct mode, but I don't know the best way of translating that to light armour like IFVs, especially with flat sides. Maybe I'm missing something? Maybe they're assuming reactive armour?

 

Of course, i would be less concerned if we had an AT4 equivalent for NATO ;-)

 

[darkChozo 133]

7 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

BTW what's up with the Kamysh? The damage value read was only ~0.07, yet it exploded after a few moments... additionally, in my first test, the Ifrit took two hits to kill. but when i was recording it died in one hit.

 

The damage command doesn't necessarily reflect the true damage state of a vehicle. Vehicles can be destroyed purely by hit point damage, I believe either to HitHull or HitFuel for ground vehicles. For example, if you do "cursorTarget setHitPointDamage ["HitHull",1]", a Kamysh will still read 0 for its damage value but will explode after a few seconds anyway. It's better to use a combination of damage and getAllHitPointsDamage when evaluating how much damage a weapon has done.

 

Arma also does decent modelling of different hit points/armor values on vehicles, so you should also probably be hitting each vehicle from the same angle if you want comparable results. Dunno how much that affects missiles, but for something like a tank cannon there is a very noticeable difference in damage done based on where shots hit.

[SuicideKing 233]

5 hours ago, darkChozo said:

rma also does decent modelling of different hit points/armor values on vehicles, so you should also probably be hitting each vehicle from the same angle if you want comparable results.

Yeah that's true... hmmm... I'm not sure how to set such a test up, actually, without spending a lot of time positioning vehicles between runs :/

 

 I guess there's also the added complication that all hitpoints may not be located in the same place between vehicles. Will try this again using getAllHitPointsDamage just to see what is happening.

[x3kj 1247]

11 hours ago, SuicideKing said:

my concern was more from seeing them go boom in one hit

I find this discussion or any test about damage useless at this point, as it is very likely that we will see changes to how it works soon. Also,

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Damage_Description

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Diagnostics_Exe

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

5 hours ago, x3kj said:

I find this discussion or any test about damage useless at this point

 You are hopefully right about the changes to the way armor works.

 

I would say the projectile penetration is rather good from Vanilla, but that two major things that would improve armored combat are:

 

Native support for HEAT/EFP "submunitions" (as it seems we are getting with the PCML to start with).

 

and

 

More modules that can be damaged (namely ammunition storage, turret ring, elevation mechanism, optics, ERA panels, etc).

 

 

@oukej, a quick question for you. I just noticed some days ago when shooting the varsuk, that the engine produced darker/thicker smoke when damaged. Is this new or old feature? Can not remember seeing this effect before. Like it very much :)

[scavenjer 112]

On 14/02/2018 at 1:18 PM, Strike_NOR said:

 You are hopefully right about the changes to the way armor works.

 

I would say the projectile penetration is rather good from Vanilla, but that two major things that would improve armored combat are:

 

Native support for HEAT/EFP "submunitions" (as it seems we are getting with the PCML to start with).

 

and

 

More modules that can be damaged (namely ammunition storage, turret ring, elevation mechanism, optics, ERA panels, etc).

 

 

@oukej, a quick question for you. I just noticed some days ago when shooting the varsuk, that the engine produced darker/thicker smoke when damaged. Is this new or old feature? Can not remember seeing this effect before. Like it very much :)

I think it's pretty much too late at this point, I was lobbying for damage overhaul and APS back when they were asking people what they wanted to see in tanks DLC.

The vast majority of people seem to prefer aesthetics (interiors) over functionality (proper damage and armour simulation, APS warning systems...).

 

Nevertheless, I remain excited for the DLC.

 

[en3x 209]

3 hours ago, scavenjer said:

I think it's pretty much too late at this point, I was lobbying for damage overhaul and APS back when they were asking people what they wanted to see in tanks DLC.

The vast majority of people seem to prefer aesthetics (interiors) over functionality (proper damage and armour simulation, APS warning systems...).

 

Nevertheless, I remain excited for the DLC.

 

 

Functionality and interiors are 2 different topics and 2 different professions.

 

Modeler who model interiors won't code C++ functionality of armor simulation. 

Lots of people supported and commented on driving phyX simulation that has dedicated thread

and we have seen progress on that front. There it is functionality.

 

But hold on to your hats, they are working on something interesting for sure, that wasn't revealed yet.

Maybe that error simulation pop up that someone mentioned is a clue. We just have to wait.

[lex__1 422]

6 minutes ago, en3x said:

But hold on to your hats, they are working on something interesting for sure, that wasn't revealed yet.

Maybe that error simulation pop up that someone mentioned is a clue. We just have to wait.

We hope the sail will appear from the distant sea and turn in our direction )))

Spoiler

 

[lonewolf96 44]

On 2/5/2018 at 5:53 PM, roberthammer said:

Very nice ,but can you add prone AT firing animation? while its already in the game but it is not used

 

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83601

Made a ticket for this around 2013-2014 with no avail :)

[Strike_NOR 898]

Hello again! 

 

Having an awful lot of fun with the Shots diag tool! The tool is amazing!

 

So I have some feedback for the missile flight improvements:

 

First off, the PCML in overfly attack mode is extremely well made. Bravo! It's pure joy to send that thing downrange!

Spoiler

 

The Titan-AT in top-attack, seems to be missing one final adjustment to make it on par with the PCML in terms of guidance, and that is predicted lead. The Titan seemingly always lags behind the target in "lag pursuit" which happens when the missile always tries to fly directly at the target. The PCML does not suffer from this, as it immediately after launch compensates for target velocity, and heads on a predicted impact (or lead pursuit) guidance path.

 

Is there a way to incorporate lead pursuit to the Titan AT? At least for the horizontal axis.

 

Here's a picture that clearly shows the difference between Titan-AT top attack and PCML top attack:

Spoiler

 

As you can see, the PCML pretty much only corrects course ONCE, immediately after launch, and the rest of the flight is pretty much in a straight line. This is on par with the real thing (NLAW) and also the most efficient route to target, which guarantees the highest hit-probability.

 

The Titan AT though, it constantly turns.... from start it always aims at the target, and since the target is moving, the missile always turns. This means you will almost always strike the target from a rear angle, and if the target is coming towards you, the missile might not steer enough to hit it.

 

Is it possible to make the titan AT fly in a lead pursuit motion too? I can only imagine this is how the real thing works, both Javelin and Spike AT missiles.

 

 

Now, some errors.

 

The PCML really struggles in Direct Attack mode against ground vehicles. It dips so low, it couldn't even fly over a snake in the grass. You need to insert some minimum altitude threshold (maybe about 1,5 meters over the ground) so that the missile will never do this:

Spoiler

Note: Altitude of 0.3 meters... dang that's gonna upset even the moles living under ground!

Also.. the flightpath in Direct Attack seemed a lot more wobbly (snake-like). (Hey- maybe that's it... maybe the missile thinks it's a snake!)

Spoiler

The flightpath in Direct Attack seemed a lot more wobbly (snake-like). (Hey- maybe that's it... maybe the missile thinks it's a snake!)

You can see that it is actually steering back and forth a lot, compared to when it is in overfly attack!

 

Also, here is the HEAT debacle again. I absolutely LOVE what you did to the overfly attack on the PCML. This is huge, so huge... as Trump would say.

Spoiler

Absolutely fantastic. Amazing submunitions, the best. It's a fact. You wouldn't believe how well it submunitions, that's how good it is. And we're gonna make BI studios pay for them!

 

But the "projectile" seems to make a lot of indirect hit damage? (Is it counted as semi-explosive)? 

 

Also.. in terms of nitpicking... The NLAW (PCML RL counterpart) does not have anti-tank capabilities in Direct Attack mode. Yet, in the game, the projectile will fire straight forwards during DA mode, and angled down at overfly attack. This requires the missile to have a mechanical solution that adjusts the warhead angle in-flight or before launch. Which afaik, doesn't exist.

 

yeah yeah, I know it's a 2035 model PCML, but still. It would be neat if the warhead was purely HE in DA mode, and made the projectile in Overfly attack only. For you know.. realism purposes :)

 

So this should not happen in real life:

Spoiler

 

Differentiating the overfly attack (AT-capability) from the Direct Attack (General purpose) would serve a reason ingame to chose one of the two modes. It would add more flavor to the game/weapon and give players a very good reason to use different modes depending on the situation.

 

So that is all for now :)

 

let me know if you want more information like this. I know I have been "mildly put" active recently. Just very excited for the DLC :)

 

Have a great weekend!

[oukej 2911]

1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

Is it possible to make the titan AT fly in a lead pursuit motion too? I can only imagine this is how the real thing works, both Javelin and Spike AT missiles.

 

(In the game) During the climb-out the missile doesn't "see" the target. It only leads the target in the final phase when the target is again in it's FoR. _Not sure if we'd be able to add some estimated/inertial lead during the climb phase_
 

1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

The PCML really struggles in Direct Attack mode against ground vehicles. It dips so low, it couldn't even fly over a snake in the grass. You need to insert some minimum altitude threshold (maybe about 1,5 meters over the ground) so that the missile will never do this:

1

It's an issue with targets' "zamerny" memory point being too low (https://feedback.bistudio.com/T126270#1667305)

 

1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

But the "projectile" seems to make a lot of indirect hit damage? (Is it counted as semi-explosive)?

1

It should be marginal. Will check. Overall in terms of damage the PCML has not been yet fully aligned with the armor improvements.

 

1 hour ago, Strike_NOR said:

Also.. in terms of nitpicking... The NLAW (PCML RL counterpart) does not have anti-tank capabilities in Direct Attack mode. Yet, in the game, the projectile will fire straight forwards during DA mode, and angled down at overfly attack. This requires the missile to have a mechanical solution that adjusts the warhead angle in-flight or before launch. Which afaik, doesn't exist.

 

yeah yeah, I know it's a 2035 model PCML, but still. It would be neat if the warhead was purely HE in DA mode, and made the projectile in Overfly attack only. For you know.. realism purposes :)

1

We haven't thought about it :/, so currently it's not possible technically. But it's definitely a valid request. We'll see how much time we'll have.

[scavenjer 112]

Maybe these videos could help somewhat?

 

I know he doesn't post any code in there (website in description does though) but this is essentially how the titan AT should behave and it might give you some inspiration.

 

 

[oukej 2911]

We've got it already https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A3_Targeting_config_reference#trackLead , with slight differences for some gameplay variety it's been set to a value close to 1.0 on more or less on all missiles in Arma so far. The difference now is with the top-down missile simulation where the missile flies to a predefined fixed point first and only goes after target in the terminal, dive phase.

[Strike_NOR 898]

Good intel! I think the javelin/spike (Titan) has a pretty wide FOV for the IR seeker, and this allows it to track the target through the entire envelope, adjusting to the target "on the fly".

 

Noticed that the titan AT has the state "seeking" for most of the flight, while PCML state is "locked"

[oukej 2911]

[looks in the mirror... "dude, where's the documentation u promised, huh?"]

[scavenjer 112]

5 minutes ago, oukej said:

[looks in the mirror... "dude, where's the documentation u promised, huh?"]

To be fair, I think making it track and lead from the get-go while still going for top down could need a rewrite of the tracking, though it would solve several issues with the current system.

Such as if you use SACLOS mode in top attack and you change distance too rapidly or too extreme, the titan will perform normal DA.

[Strike_NOR 898]

And hopefully not like 

 

"Aww sweet, an enemy tank. Got it in my sights... Solid lock, let 'er rip"

 

*Click*

 

*FWWWWOOOOOOSH*

 

.... *tense waiting*...

 

...any moment now....

 

 

 

 

*crickets chirping*

 

"Dude, where's my Titan?"

[HaseDesTodes 62]

9M135 Vorona Missile

some particles seem  a bit misaligned in flight

Spoiler

 

 

Zamak MRL

Spread is too low imo

the spread is the same as with Sandstorm MLRS. (ballistics computer says 45m at 28km range)

i'm no expert, but the Zamak seems like a more low-tech weapons system to me and i would expect it to perform worse.

one thing i noticed, and like very much, was, that the Zamak MRL was much less stable when firing quick barrages than the Sandstorm, what has lead to most rockets landing in a cluster a bit away from the target

Spoiler

 

the single impact on the runway is pretty much on target

oh and distance was around 28km

 

when waiting 5 sec between each rocket, the spread around the target

 

[x3kj 1247]

Quote

some particles seem  a bit misaligned in flight

I think thats intentional, to give the swirly effect of some real AT missiles

[scavenjer 112]

Right, did some testing with the new NATO ATGM on the rhino, in direct fire it dips a lot and will just hit the ground.

In top attack mode it will go direct attack sub 300m or so...? But actually works as opposed to straight up direct attack mode.

Same happens with the FireFIST ATGM  on the Wiesel Nyx, although both modes work the missile still drops very close to the ground.

For some bizarre reason the damage seems the same on the FireFIST in both DA and TA?

 

Testing done in the virtual world.

[Strike_NOR 898]

24 minutes ago, HaseDesTodes said:

some particles seem  a bit misaligned in flight

As far as i know, this is to make the missile more visible to the operator so you can better guide it. A nice and realistic touch

[HaseDesTodes 62]

4 minutes ago, x3kj said:

I think thats intentional, to give the swirly effect of some real AT missiles

 

Just now, Strike_NOR said:

As far as i know, this is to make the missile more visible to the operator so you can better guide it. A nice and realistic touch

 

i know the rotation thing is intentional (and looks cool).

but i think the fire should come out of the end of the fin, not out of thin air

[scavenjer 112]

Did some more quick testing:

 

Rhino MGS destroyed collision model is a bit too high.

Not to mention somehow it took an APFSDS and stopped it ..... (did instantly explode, maybe that's why the shell stopped so quickly?)

 

Varsuk vs Angara
Note how the 125 AP went through the hull side and stopped on some internal armour while the side turret shot went through and through (went into another Angara parked next to it, turret ring and kep going into a Kuma side hull where it again went through and through.
distance 5m

https://streamable.com/l1sqz

edit: woops wrong thread :/