Question about aircraft/vehicle targetting system.

[ricnunes 0]

Well I've seen several promissing info/movies/screenshots about ArmA2 but so far I haven't seen the info that I waiting the most for, which is to know how the targetting systems will work in ArmA2.

Will it be the same "vertical situation arcadish radar" that we currently have in ArmA? This I admit would be a HUGE disapointment to me, and I simply hope that BIS doesn't decide for this!

Or will it be a more realistic aproach where you have for example optical targetting system cameras (both termal and visual) in aircraft/main armored vehicles which serves to detect and target enemy targets or even a radar which work similar to real ones (horizontal situation radar instead of the OFP/ArmA vertical situation one) in some air defence units (like the Tunguska) or advanced aircraft (F-35)?

I really hope that BIS decides for the later aproach. BIS, please remember that OFP2 will have termal sights for some of their vehicles and aircraft and also for the Javelin Anti-Tank missile! Using that old "vertical situation" radar will definitly put ArmA2 at a big disadvantage compared to OFP2.

And of course, thanks in advance for replies.

[xnodunitx 0]

I surely hope the targetting and radar system is redone, right now we're still in the WWII ages with modern equipment and it's just horrid.

I hope they will make it more modernly realistic and perhaps have a "secondary" radar made of shapes and points at its base.

Say for example you mount a circle into a display unit, add a center point named "radar", that becomes the secondary radar, you can add two more circles to it, then you have more smaller shapes defined as en- ah drat...well I forgot halfway through and it sounded a bit more intelligent a few minutes earlier.

Basicly the idea of this would be to create in a way your own custom radar for aviation and AA/AAA units, I'm sure you get the jest of it.

[funnyguy1 0]

yeah...as I said a couple of times before, I would wait for the game longer, and pay for it much more if they added more realism/details to the vehicles.

That's why they could earn some extra money by making those expansions focused on vehicles...>>HINT!<<

[dentist guba 0]

i dont think this is too much to ask for, especially thermal camera based systems, someone has already made a camera guidance script for arma.

even having some vehicles with thermal vision instead of radar would be a start.

[volkov956 0]

I just hope I can no longer magically target a vehicle behind a mountain/hill that I have no way of actually seeing in real life because of the obstacle....

[ricnunes 0]

Yes, let's hope that BIS "listens" and implement our requests!

But I admit that I'm still affraid that BIS could use the same stupid arcadish radar of ArmA/OFP, judging from the recent videos that I've seen since they show the UH-1Y and F-35 where again that stupid arcadish radar from ArmA/OFP is still present. Just hope that since those videos are from a version in development that such radar will not be modeled in the final version and something more realistic will be modeled instead.

Regarding the optical targetting systems, that should be present in a number of vehicles (such as the AH-1Z, UH-1Y, Ka-50, MBTs and some other armored vehicles such as the Lav-25 and BMP-2/3 and even the F-35) I would be happy if BIS modeled something for it (optical targetting system) like for example:

- Both Termal a Visual imaging modeled and present and selectable.

- Targetting and Laser/SACLOS guided weapons guidance (for missiles like Hellfire, Vikhr, TOW, etc...) should be implemented in two selectable way:

The first would be a manual mode where the gunner must keep the targetting system crosshair aimed at the target, like what we have now in ArmA for TOW missiles.

The second should model the "autotrack" function that such systems have in real life. For this I would be happy if we had something like we already have in ArmA where when we aim the targetting system crosshair into a target and press the right mouse button, that same target will be targeted (with the box surround it) and the missile would guide towards that locked target BUT of course this would mean that for realism sake that the "TAB button" function should be removed except for situations like for example in a AH-1Z where the pilot is human and the gunner an AI, where the TAB button would be something like an order to the AI gunner to lock an another target.

By the way, can someone from BIS answer my question about targetting systems in ArmA2? I would really apreciate.

[dentist guba 0]

they didn't show any optical targeting in the video from armabase.de and the radar thing looked the same, however, this is WIP so we don't know. they seem to have made some things in the optics better though.

[Boborish 1]

I fear we wont see any proper thermal imaging in Arma2, it would require separate textures for everything in greyscale (simulating the thermal emissions), it would need to change depending on the weather / temperature etc to make it realistic. What we currently can see in ArmA is just setAperture with low numbers (0.1-0.3) and works only during a night. (because of the greyscale postprocessing effect present in night)

That would take too long to implement, but of course, I would be very grateful to see this in vanilla Arma2.

[ricnunes 0]

I fear we wont see any proper thermal imaging in Arma2, it would require separate textures for everything in greyscale (simulating the thermal emissions), it would need to change depending on the weather / temperature etc to make it realistic.

I could be wrong but I think that DirectX9 supports termal imaging, so I think that I woudn't be that hard (and it wouldn't need "extra textures") for BIS to model a termal camera in ArmA2.

[Boborish 1]

Heh honestly I dont know much about gfx so I didnt know DirectX has its own way to do this. Always thought there are special textures that appear when you turn the thermal on. I wonder how its working then...

[ricnunes 0]

Please notice that I not 100% sure about this either. But again I think that DirectX9 is able to generate termal images in a 3D world.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I don't think we'll ever see thermal and "proper" targetting systems, even if this is wip. If that were the case, they would have been desperate to show it to us since this is a feature in such great demand.

I've explained in another thread how IR could be made work without any extra texture; basic value on vehicle or object, with alpha mask texture. All it needs is an extra channel in the texture and value to determine if alpha is supposed to work as transpoarency mask, IR value, or both (split in upper and lower value in rare cases). Terrain and sky can cause proper crossover times if IR value changes with daylight and time of year?

It won't take long time until a better horizontal radar can be used clientside though using a mod, although it's far from perfect.

[ricnunes 0]

I must agree that there is a very big chance you could be right.

Actually I'm afraid that ArmA2 will become (at least to me) a big disapointment. From each movie that I see and features that I read about ArmA2 I get more disapointed, specially of course because of the targetting system which doesn't seem to be improved at all (and to me this is the worse feature of ArmA, but of course not the only one) but from each movie that I see and features that I read about OFP2 I get more and more optimistic and it certainly has my attention specially because it will have in fact a termal targetting system which is definitly more realistic than the ArmA/OFP one and since the OFP2 devs already promissed that OFP2 will be as realistic (or even more) than OFP and if they deliver what they promissed there's a very good chance that I'll skip ArmA2 and go directly to OFP2! And this in a game (OFP2) which I was very skeptical before!

I wouldn't like to abandon ArmA series but if what I discribed above happens, that is exactly what will happen! Guess that each one "digs his own grave" and this could very likely to happen with BIS if they "forget" to include these so much requested features/improvements.

[sparks50 0]

Disappointment or not, its all down to how much you expect from it. It sure will be better than Arma in many areas.

[max power 21]

I fear we wont see any proper thermal imaging in Arma2, it would require separate textures for everything in greyscale (simulating the thermal emissions), it would need to change depending on the weather / temperature etc to make it realistic.

I could be wrong but I think that DirectX9 supports termal imaging, so I think that I woudn't be that hard (and it wouldn't need "extra textures") for BIS to model a termal camera in ArmA2.

I don't think that this is correct. How would direct x know what is hot and what is not?

[stakex 0]

Disappointment or not, its all down to how much you expect from it. It sure will be better than Arma in many areas.

This always gets me... I don't know about you, but I personally expect something other then minor improvements from a NEW game, especially when the developers have had SEVEN YEARS worth of feedback, and imput from the community.

Expectations for ArmA1 were kinda low as the devs themselfs even said it was intended as a go between for Game2(ArmA2 now) and OFP. So the fact that it made such little improvement over OFP was not really a big deal.

However, ArmA2 can't get away with that... ArmA2 isn't suppose to be the half hearted, money maker that ArmA1 was. Its suppose to be a "Lifelike combat simulation" accodring to BIS's own website... yet some aspects of the game are so far from lifelike its incredible. Not the least of which is the vehicle targeting system, which does in fact appear to the very same as it was in OFP v1.0... and thats inexcusable as it was one of OFP's weakpoints. How it could survive like it is for all these years is really quite amazing.

But back on the topic of expectations for a second...

Bohemia Interactive take a new step into the heart of military realism, raising the benchmark for true combat experience...

Its kinda hard not to expect quite a bit, when BIS pats itself on the back with statements like that as well as "Ultimate Military Simulator". Its fine to make statements like that about your games... as long as you back it up. I hate to say it, I really do... but I think Codemasters is going to dominate this round. Hopefully Im wrong in the end tho....

[EricM 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Especially when the developers have had SEVEN YEARS worth of feedback, and imput from the community"

To be honest, 80% of community input is worthless for 3 reasons :

- Casusal gamers and happy people usually don't post, though they may represent the majority of the real customers. They may have very different expectations than the minority of "veterans".

- Mostly hard-core specialists (able to see minor flaws where 80% of the crowd wouldn't notice or even care) and unhappy folks rant about everything.

- Everybody sees it's own pet-peeves as an absolute "show-stopper", leading to complete lack of sense of priorities in the various "suggestions threads" whichall  end up being : We want everything...

- All tanks,

- All planes,

- All guns,

- All functions,

- All units,

- Smooth as silk on lower hardware with next gen graphics

- Accurate and yet userfriendly,

- SP and MP (including, PvP and coop)

- Realistic and Balanced

- Scripted and yet Dynamic campaign (!!!

So BIS is pretty much alone deciding on what to improve according to their financial resources, perception of what makes a good game, and what time they can dedicate on this.

Arma is a Jake-of-all-trades, which will never be as complete as other specialists games, because there is no time/money for it.

Plus, Arma has to sell the the mainstream market to make a profit, and for the majority of gamers "WW2 with modern look" is about the most complicated it can get.

It wouldn't be really playable if it was "Steel Beast Pro" + "XPlane" + "Harpoon" + you name it... I would'nt be able to shoot a single shot or enter any vehicle more sophisticated than a mountain bike (thank god, there will be one !

I think you might be in for a big dissapointment if you believe OFP2 will be much different. With some luck, they will have polished a bit more the one thing you don't like in Arma 2, but somebody else will cry out loud on something else...

Edit : this being said, if they find a good compromise to improve the targeting system while keeping it accessible to the majority, i'm all for it

[ricnunes 0]

First of all, I completly agree with stakex!

@ EricM:

Like stakex previously said, this is supposed to be the "new step into the heart of military realism" and in military realism there is NO place for such an arcadish targetting system like we have in ArmA (the same as in OFP).

Besides, I don't want all the planes, tanks, guns, etc... I prefer much more to have a very few but well detailed planes, tanks, guns, etc... (again with more realistic targetting systems) than many with that arcadish targetting system. While I can't speak for others, I'm sure that most will agree with this.

I also disagree with the point the ArmA's arcadish targetting system will be kept because "Arma has to sell the the mainstream market to make a profit". Again OFP2 will have more realistic and accurate targetting systems. The OFP2 devs already stated this and in one of those OFP2 movies (the main one in their website, I think) you can see a Targetting system from an armored vehicle (think it's from a LAV25) which is a termal imaging and it also displays the range below similar to what we have in reality (and in more realistic games such as Stell Beasts or M1 Tank Platton 2). There is also America's Army where you have a realistic (with IR camera) targetting system for the Javelin (something that OFP2 devs already promised for their game too).

Resuming, I don't ask for a targetting system which works exactly the same as have the same functions as Stell Beasts, M1 Tank Platton 2, Jane's Longbow 2, etc...) but I ask for a targetting system that LOOKS LIKE those to what we have in the previously mentioned simulations. It doesn't need to work exactly as it works in those sims or in reality, it just needs to look like the ones and have the basic functions as in those sims or real ones have but NEVER like the ones we currently have in ArmA!

[funnyguy1 0]

Its kinda hard not to expect quite a bit, when BIS pats itself on the back with statements like that as well as "Ultimate Military Simulator". Its fine to make statements like that about your games... as long as you back it up. I hate to say it, I really do... but I think Codemasters is going to dominate this round. Hopefully Im wrong in the end tho....

Well, have you seen any other fps games that simulated battlefield on such a big scale?

R6, GR, yeah, they're nice, but come on, they aren't even close in the terms of size. I think BIS pretty much rules when it comes to fps war sims, as ArmA is the only fps war sim out there. And even though it was designed to be an ofp 1.5 it brought an enormous number of improovements! When I first heard about it being just a 1.5 thing, I though I'll get another Resistance (which wouldn't be that bad). It was a whole new game! (the campaign sucked though)

Now, since ArmA 2 will also be the only true sim on the market they can even say it's the "Super Ultimate Military Simulator" or "Military Simulation Fresh Maker", whatever. They're right.

When it comes to ofp2...we'll see.

[ricnunes 0]

Well, have you seen any other fps games that simulated battlefield on such a big scale?

R6, GR, yeah, they're nice, but come on, they aren't even close in the terms of size. I think BIS pretty much rules when it comes to fps war sims, as ArmA is the only fps war sim out there. And even though it was designed to be an ofp 1.5 it brought an enormous number of improovements! When I first heard about it being just a 1.5 thing, I though I'll get another Resistance (which wouldn't be that bad). It was a whole new game! (the campaign sucked though)

Now, since ArmA 2 will also be the only true sim on the market they can even say it's the "Super Ultimate Military Simulator" or "Military Simulation Fresh Maker", whatever. They're right.

When it comes to ofp2...we'll see.

I think NO one here doubts that ArmA is for the time being the "only" "fps war sim" but this doesn't mean that ArmA:

- Has some areas where is seems more an arcade game than a sim.

- Needs huge improvements in several major/important areas.

For me is very puzzling to see a game (ArmA) that is so realistic in some areas like for example in modeling the foot soldier warfare (where it is in fact the most realistic of all games in this area) while in others is so arcadish! To be a realistic game/sim/whatever a game must try to be as realistic as possible in ALL areas and not only in one or two areas while the remaining are kept arcadish - This unfortunally is what happens in ArmA.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

- Everybody sees it's own pet-peeves as an absolute "show-stopper", leading to complete lack of sense of priorities in the various "suggestions threads" which all end up being : We want everything...

Absolutely right! I think the whole post is, actually.

I mean, I'd personally prefer a well explained proper fire control system in the AFVs but you know, I'm sure ACE mod etc. will fill us in. It's not a game-breaker as I see the infantry element as the most emphasised part of the game, with other things supporting that whether this is to people's tastes or not.

Quote[/b] ]For me is very puzzling to see a game (ArmA) that is so realistic in some areas like for example in modeling the foot soldier warfare (where it is in fact the most realistic of all games in this area) while in others is so arcadish!

It's when you stop the teenager who bought the game in a shop after looking at the "cool" cover getting in a tank in-game and firing on the nearest building, that you lose a potential long-term customer. If they have to target, or whatever and can't be bothered to learn the details they may think the game's too complicated.

Also, look, there's around 50,000 members on these forums, mostly without any or with very few posts. Under a thousand of those car enough to discuss Arma2 or OFP2 and their features, and a few dozen perhaps feel that a proper FCS is "absolutely imperative". I'd say it's the best bet for BIS to cater for the mainstream and get more sales, not the dozen who care on the forum.

[ricnunes 0]

It's when you stop the teenager who bought the game in a shop after looking at the "cool" cover getting in a tank in-game and firing on the nearest building, that you lose a potential long-term customer. If they have to target, or whatever and can't be bothered to learn the details they may think the game's too complicated.

I don't think this game is for the "teenager" that you mention. The games you mention are more "Battlefield" or "Call of Duty 4" for example and which both curiously have a more realistic looking targetting systems.

Armed Assault is directed to more "mature" public and even "teenagers" that like more realistic games. A "teenager" that likes arcadish games will never pick up ArmA or ArmA2, NO matter what targetting system will have (the old arcade one or a more accurate one)!

Quote[/b] ]Also, look, there's around 50,000 members on these forums, mostly without any or with very few posts. Under a thousand of those car enough to discuss Arma2 or OFP2 and their features, and a few dozen perhaps feel that a proper FCS is "absolutely imperative". I'd say it's the best bet for BIS to cater for the mainstream and get more sales, not the dozen who care on the forum.

Only a few dozen care about an improved targetting system?? I don't think so. IMO and by reading most posts I bet that most (thousands) care about an improved targetting system.

Besides, like I said I'm not defending a "ultra-realistic" targetting system.

I defend a system that looks like a real ones (again like OFP2 will have and like Call of Duty 4 already have in the AC-130 gunner for example) in which instead to having that arcadish looking radar which works with the TAB we could have a realistic looking targeting system which would be a termal (and also visual) camera which would be aimed at the target. This way it wouldn't be that hard to learn, would look much more realistic and using a termal camera it would even be "easier" to engage some targets such as infantry and world of course appeal to the more "hardcore" players.

Again, some arcadish games already have more realistic looking targeting systems, why doesn't ArmA2 have??

[EricM 0]

Quote[/b] ]Resuming, I don't ask for a targetting system which works exactly the same as have the same functions as Stell Beasts, M1 Tank Platton 2, Jane's Longbow 2, etc...) but I ask for a targetting system that LOOKS LIKE those to what we have in the previously mentioned simulations.

For sure, if they can keep the "simplicity" for the casual gamer with the look of the realism for the more advanced users, they have a winner.

It's like working instruments and hud in the cockpits : who really uses them in Arma ? Almost no one I'd say, but they're here and it feels like it's working and that you COULD use it if needed, it feels like a sim... (even if it's not really one...)

Maybe working MFDs with "pseudo-realistic" radars could be added on top on the "magic hud" GUI... As for thermal imaging, it would both be nice and make sense on a marketing plan as many other games are doing it already (so it would only be playing catch-up) and it's fun and good looking for the masses : more eyecandy = more sales !

Splinter Cell used it extensively (and it was exceptionnaly well done in 2003) while I've seen nice FLIR sequence in COD4 (AC130 attack). At last, I think they implemented the tech for VBS2 (not sure but I read something about that), so it's more of a strategic question than a technical one for BIS...

I'm all for that, but I don't think it's top priority for them : Infantry, AI, command interface and landscape is probably the basic package that they want the get working, because the ONLY thing (imho) that Arma can really "simulate" is tactical decision-making, not vehicle or system handling or even sharp shooting...

PS : for the record I really dislike the "tab" cyclic targeting currently ingame, especially when in a gunner position and not a pilot, so almost anything could be better...

[ricnunes 0]

That's exactly what I meant EricM!

Regading ArmA being considered a vehicle "simulation" or not, I think that regarding Helicopters ArmA is very near to be helicopters simulation, since it has IMO a very decent flight model (except for the lack the tail rotor authority) and all that ArmA needs to be a helicopter simulation is to improve the tail rotor authority and of course to implement a better targeting system thru optical termal and visual cameras (for the helos that have this system like the AH-1, of course) even if such system would be a simple one.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Re: TAB target cycling - as I said already and will say again in this thread - some prioritisation of targets is all that's needed to make it more useable - press _x_ to cycle through targets in highest to lowest priority order, press _x_ to cycle through targets in distance order, select ground/air targeting or both ground-and-air when pressing those other cycle keys, and maybe still press TAB to cycle all targets in the old way.

shift+TAB, ctrl+TAB, altGr+TAB?

Some mixing-up of this to allow priority vs distance would be a natural thing, the closest SAM is probably the one to target first, then the closest AA soldier (if visible and known about, tho not on radar) etc.

You get the idea.

Some visual differentiation of target-types on the existing Radar display (arcadish or not it is very useable, globally available to all vehicles, and could be easily improved) would also help immensely to make ArmA2 more playable, little vehicle icons, SAM icons, etc., for use by the more advanced vehicles to add basic target classification would be simple and realistic ENOUGH to achieve.

To take the idea further, probably no time to achieve this before release tho, at the end of the day the radar COULD be disable-able through the game options, leaving more hardcore guys the choice of relying on MFD radar and HUD target-info if these were ever to be added at some future time.

Perhaps the ability to DO this kind of MFD and HUD display could be put into the engine so that modders could then expand the idea over time?

Some docs and a few basic/simple examples would go a long way to getting that rolling.

I really miss instruments and a HUD in that old Cobra.

p.s. JOIN THE CAMPAIGN FOR LOBL/LOAL HELLFIRES NOW!