Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements

[SuicideKing 233]

3 hours ago, snoops_213 said:

Considering that APS is not implemented in game, none of the missiles or rockets should trigger any type of warning, unless spotted visually by the player or AI in which case pop smoke and try to hide. 

That is how it was before, for players.

 

But the issue was that AI used smoke like countermeasures whereas players could not, leading to an annoying asymmetry against the AI. So this at least brings AI and human crew on about the same level of awareness, since they didn't want to/could not feasibly fix the "smoke as countermeasure" thing that the AI were doing.

 

AI don't pop smoke on an incoming rocket, so players don't get that ability either. If you're playing with supporting infantry then you'll likely get warned about incoming or potentially incoming rockets, so you'll have a slight advantage w.r.t. AI. However, the AI can locate the source of incoming fire and engage very quickly and very accurately, so I guess they have that advantage.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

7 hours ago, scavenjer said:

IMO this is absolutely needed for MBTs, it ups their situational awareness which currently is incredibly poor, especially in 1pp only servers.

 

Given that these tanks are equipped with thermal optics that suffer from 0 resolution loss and can see for literally as far as the players view distance is set I'm okay with the infantry having this minor advantage.

[scavenjer 112]

13 hours ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

Given that these tanks are equipped with thermal optics that suffer from 0 resolution loss and can see for literally as far as the players view distance is set I'm okay with the infantry having this minor advantage.

Thermal on tanks isn't as good as you think, at longer ranges it takes a little bit of time for things to be clear.
Again, thermal sights IRL are actually better than what we have in-game.

[Damian90 697]

It really depends on thermal sights generation.

 

An old 1970's tech like TIS or WBG-X will have poor resolution and range compared to XXI century 2nd or 3rd generation FLIR, heck even 1990's tech like 1st generation FLIR or TOGS-2 are better.

 

Also among 1970's tech are some better solutions like TTS or TOGS-1.

 

It all depends on technology used.

 

The problem in Arma3 is contrast, because thermal sight view simply do not show enough contrast between objects especially if they have lower temperature.

 

 

[scavenjer 112]

4 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

It really depends on thermal sights generation.

 

An old 1970's tech like TIS or WBG-X will have poor resolution and range compared to XXI century 2nd or 3rd generation FLIR, heck even 1990's tech like 1st generation FLIR or TOGS-2 are better.

 

Also among 1970's tech are some better solutions like TTS or TOGS-1.

 

It all depends on technology used.

 

The problem in Arma3 is contrast, because thermal sight view simply do not show enough contrast between objects especially if they have lower temperature.

 

 

Yeah, arma 3s thermal is a bit....
 The way it originally was, was much better.

[Damian90 697]

This is how view from a 2nd generation FLIR thermal sight looks like (M1A1SA above and below Merkava Mk4). Plants, buildings, even differences in terrain can be clearly seen. So thermal sights should be like NVG's in terms of presenting contrast between objects, but showing also their thermal signatures.

[dragon01 902]

Are you sure it's thermal and not NV? It really looks suspiciously like the latter, plus the FLIR NOT CONNECTED caption makes me wonder... :) 

 

The problem with ArmA3 TI is that only things "of note" seems to actually have a temperature. Tanoa, for example, is a tropical island hot enough so that during daytime and especially in the sun, the air itself will be hotter than the human body temperature. Altis, during the summer, would also be hotter than 37 degrees on some days. And let's not forget metal sheets, vehicles standing in the sun, garbage cans, asphalt roadways, anything black... :) In fact, this is the primary reason for the "Black Hot" mode - when you want to highlight something that's cooler than the environment. This is also why thermal sights are often considered a kind of NV, on a sunny day their usefulness is somewhat reduced.

 

I hope that ArmA4 takes this into account, as well as effects of the environmental conditions on fatigue.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

36 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Are you sure it's thermal and not NV? It really looks suspiciously like the latter, plus the FLIR NOT CONNECTED caption makes me wonder... :) 

 

The problem with ArmA3 TI is that only things "of note" seems to actually have a temperature. Tanoa, for example, is a tropical island hot enough so that during daytime and especially in the sun, the air itself will be hotter than the human body temperature. Altis, during the summer, would also be hotter than 37 degrees on some days. And let's not forget metal sheets, vehicles standing in the sun, garbage cans, asphalt roadways, anything black... :) In fact, this is the primary reason for the "Black Hot" mode - when you want to highlight something that's cooler than the environment. This is also why thermal sights are often considered a kind of NV, on a sunny day their usefulness is somewhat reduced.

 

I hope that ArmA4 takes this into account, as well as effects of the environmental conditions on fatigue.

 

Did you know that changing the time of year also affects the usefulness of TI in Arma right?  There are times of the year where TI is completely useless in game.

[Beagle 684]

The main issue with FLIR in ArmA is that all devices render the same picture qualitiy. RL is it impossible to have the same resolution with an uncooled small mounted device compared to an large and heavy active cooled one. Small oncololed bevices only can render in low Resolution and are effectice only for a few hundred meters, even less in foggy conditions. And, ArmA FLIR is somehow magically able to see through glass surfaces.

[jukk 4]

31 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Are you sure it's thermal and not NV? It really looks suspiciously like the latter, plus the FLIR NOT CONNECTED caption makes me wonder... :) 

 

 

It says PLGR NOT CONNECTED, not FLIR.

[dragon01 902]

11 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

Did you know that changing the time of year also affects the usefulness of TI in Arma right?  There are times of the year where TI is completely useless in game.

I never saw this effect make any difference, though maybe I didn't use the right times of year.

[Damian90 697]

50 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

Are you sure it's thermal and not NV? It really looks suspiciously like the latter, plus the FLIR NOT CONNECTED caption makes me wonder... :)

 

Yes, because M1A1SA do not have NV sight in any form. It's image from 2nd generation FLIR. Just as @jukk said, the FCS do not have PLGR connected for FTL (Far Target Location) system.

[dragon01 902]

Probably should've opened it properly instead of watching in a dinky forum window. :) It does look like FLIR, allright.

[scavenjer 112]

51 minutes ago, Beagle said:

The main issue with FLIR in ArmA is that all devices render the same picture qualitiy. RL is it impossible to have the same resolution with an uncooled small mounted device compared to an large and heavy active cooled one. Small oncololed bevices only can render in low Resolution and are effectice only for a few hundred meters, even less in foggy conditions. And, ArmA FLIR is somehow magically able to see through glass surfaces.

Yup, I thought they fixed the FLIR looking through windows thing? I definitely couldn't a couple of hours ago, though that might've been due to video settings...

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

I never saw this effect make any difference, though maybe I didn't use the right times of year.

 

It works.  A lot of the guys bitch at me in my community because I give them really powerful assets but then make the FLIR near useless due to the date of the mission.

[jone_kone 158]

6 minutes ago, Imperator[TFD] said:

 

It works.  A lot of the guys bitch at me in my community because I give them really powerful assets but then make the FLIR near useless due to the date of the mission.

Sounds good! What dates usually work the best? Summer midday?

 

[jukk 4]

1 hour ago, scavenjer said:

Yup, I thought they fixed the FLIR looking through windows thing? I definitely couldn't a couple of hours ago, though that might've been due to video settings...

 

This works with some windows while not with others. I think building windows are opaque, while at least some vehicle windows are transparent. However, this begs the question whether some of the vehicle glasses could realistically be transparent for IR. The FLIR devices itself use germanium windows that pass IR as well as visible spectrum. 

[xon2 102]

Question concerning: ''Added: Top-down missile flight profile for Firefist, Titan, Scalpel, Macer and cannon-launched 120mm MARUK laser-guided missile variant''

 

With hand held launchers like the PCML you can switch between DIR and TOP with the F key. But i have no clue how to switch in vehicles between the two modes. For instance, the Kajman Scalpel fires in 'High Profile Flight Mode' by default now and it shows the same UI icon in the weapon settings icon in the top right corner like the top down mode for hand held launchers. So did the DIR for airborne missles like the Scalpen, Macer etc. got canned and its all TOP down attack from now on or did i miss something?
 

[ski2060 167]

Nope, you didn't miss it.  Most of those Air to Ground missiles are now top down attack. 

 

[darkChozo 133]

TBH, the new "top-down" AGMs don't actually feel like they've changed much. Even when firing at targets on about the same elevation at you, the trajectory the missiles take is still rather direct. It's nothing like the ground-based top-down missiles.

[Strike_NOR 898]

Clarification:

 

IIRC, the top-down attack on scalpel and macer are now more of a terrain avoidance flight profile.

 

At great ranges from target the missile will fly in "level flight". Eventually the range to target meets a certain distance "x" and the level flight mode cancels, causing the missile to dive. Normally, due to the distance this happens at, and the average flying height of arma pilots being significantly lower than IRL, it leads to a rather shallow dive angle.

 

This may cause confusion, as firing the missile at "typical arma ranges/height" will be closer than the distance "x", meaning the level flight mode doesn't activate.

[scavenjer 112]

Yup, what @Strike_NOR says is correct, from my testing the missile only goes"top-attack" beyond 1.8KM or so, I have to say that I completely agree with this change.

 

From having experience with these weapons before and after this update I can confirm this is definitely more intended for collision avoidance, previously these missiles would often hit the ground at longer ranges or if you were flying too low.

Looking at RL, this is most definitely accurate since most airborne ATGMs do this very thing.

Namely hellfires, mavericks, etc...

 

[Markle 11]

• PCML missile seems to be dipping too much in direct attack mode, causing them to collide onto terrain.
• In overfly top attack mode, PCML missile is not correctly deleted after exploding over target.

[Strike_NOR 898]

3 hours ago, Markle said:

PCML missile seems to be dipping too much in direct attack mode, causing them to collide onto terrain.

 

According to @oukej, thid has to do with the target's "Zamerny" memory point being too low. This causes the missile to fly at dangerously low altitudes towards target (30cm ASL in VR map). Since VR map has no ground clutter (rocks/bushes) this generally works OK, but not in a normal terrain.

 

A possible solution would be to force the missile to hold a minimum altitude until distance to target is below a value X meters from target.

 

 

[Markle 11]

30 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

This causes the missile to fly at dangerously low altitudes towards target (30cm ASL in VR map). Since VR map has no ground clutter (rocks/bushes) this generally works OK, but not in a normal terrain.

 

Now even VR flat terrains are not safe if target is farther than, for example 600m. I would just suggest raising flight profiles a bit for both direct and overfly attack modes.