SuicideKing
-
Content Count
289 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by SuicideKing
-
As mentioned many times before in this thread, the ballistic computer does not work with missiles, only shells (the 230mm rockets are defined as shells in the Arma engine). With the drone, you can use ctrl-T to lock the camera to a target or position. Maybe that makes it easier?
-
hello. the video is from June 29th, which is before the cruise missile was added. the VLS originally had rockets + artillery computer. this was changed later, sometime around the middle of July.
-
Two bugs: Darter drone is targeted by SAMs (like the new ones). Massive overkill, and I don't think any military wastes a Patriot missile on a small quadcopter :P Pressing escape while flying aircraft (to adjust controls or something, for example) often causes the throttle to go to zero. This is in MP (self host, can't remember if it happens on a dedicated server, but probably will). Bad for obvious reasons. Re: earlier rants about the new assets - lot of people wanted the carrier when jets released, and it's been a great asset to have. Expanded the kinds of missions we could make, since there was now a floating airstrip to start from. Similarly, the destroyer is a welcome addition, and something we weren't expecting. Cruise missile functionality was requested by many after oukej showcased an example on twitter. It brings a new dimension to the game, and looks cool as heck. If you really want normal arty from the carrier just place an MLRS on the deck and hide it. /shrug And yeah, while i think a lot of us would like a return to old-fashioned conflicts (like say, the Korean War :p ), I think it's a bit to late to expect a significant change in direction 5 years after the game's first Early Access release. To that respect, the systems that have been introduced despite an old and creaking engine are quite welcome. So while certain things have been frustrating in the past (or even now, e.g. spectator markers vanishing), a handful of people have put in a huge effort in the last several months and have gone back and added much requested features, fixed many outstanding bugs and in general applied a lot of polish to the game. Keeping the conversation here constructive is probably the best way to highlight issues (see work by Madin and Dedmen or RozekPoland for example) and get them resolved. We all have a bunch of things that bother us, so patience and coherence is key. :)
-
@Freghar possibly related ticket https://feedback.bistudio.com/T85165 ? I authored that back in Dec 2015, seem to be describing something similar. If it's the same thing, then his change seems to have crept in with v1.54. I've also had an experience where I: 1. place a vehicle (like the Tigris) facing away from me 2. sneak up behind it, plant a demo charge 3. run 50m away and hide well out of site 4. blow the charge The crew bailed, and ran up to my exact spot and killed me, even though they shouldn't have any idea where I am. This was probably two years ago though, can't remember exactly.
-
Tanks - tracked vehicles driving and handling
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Probably better suited to the dev branch thread? -
To be entirely fair to them, I can see why this is low priority, in most cases people won't be near the launch site. Would be nice though, yeah. Given that they added a "no entry" texture to them, I suspect that's not going to change soon. myLSV addWeaponTurret ["missiles_titan_static",[0,0]]; myLSV addMagazineTurret ["1Rnd_GAA_missiles",[0,0]]; (turret path may just be [0], use the command allTurrets to find out) Well, considering we don't have static M2 HMGs or SPG9 yet...
-
Yeah, I would really like this too! Maybe even for Air-to-Air missiles, like they are in DCS. And for the MRL's rockets, if possible :P (basically missile trails are sexy, pls gib more) Yeah, I can agree with that :) (funny you mention the SAM trailer on the flight deck though, i was going to suggest putting the Sandstorm or Zamak MRL there as well :P )
-
That's all dandy, but the V2 rocket was developed in the 40s, and the F35 has been in development since 1992. Russia's apparently giving up on their stealth fighter. The AK-47 and AR15 have been service for 30-50 years, with revisions and tweaks. Point being, things are usually incremental, especially when it comes to military hardware, and budgets aren't infinite. Not to mention, too much futuristic stuff tends to simplify gameplay a bit too much, which actively turns a lot of us off. For example, the main reason it's boring to have mortar or arty teams in vanilla arma is because the artillery computer makes it too boring, and there's no way to do it manually (not to mention the angle/elevation stuff is incorrectly displayed). I'm aware that the IRL Mk 41 can equip those, but I question the utility in Arma given the existence of the centurion and these new SAMs. Centurion is already adequate in terms of range and payload. I'm not exactly opposed to it, but I don't know whether it's a great time investment a week before launch (and one could likely add SAMs by script, anyway). Ditto on the artillery computer. Both are definitely "good to have", as opposed to "need to have", imo. The cruise missile on the other hand makes the VLS unique in the game. That is my understanding of the situation as well.
-
These changes to the naval assets are missing from both changelogs... is that because they aren't final yet? Then they didn't break it... you are making a mission with beta/in-development assets, you should expect things to change. 2034 is only 16 years in the future, that's not a lot. And most of the stuff in Arma 3 is either in current development, or already deployed. I'm a bit wary of unicorn weapons and vehicles, they tend to make things a bit shallow. But hey, at least how the VLS is configured right now, it gives mission makers some flexibility. According to reyhard, the cruise missiles can now even hit hovering helicopters. I am curious what kinds of target it can receive. Honestly i think it's too noisy for it to receive air targets, since its job is to hit ground locations. And how can I control what kind of targets it receives? e.g. if I want it to receive only laser targets, but there are planes/helos operating in the area that need to share data from their radars and I wouldn't want the VLS receiving this data. How would this be achieved? I don't think that's much of a problem really. If it's going to be one of the biggest booms in the game, then there needs to be some trade-off for using it. Yeah with the earlier set up (before it received an artillery computer) my main use case was going to be for shore bombardment, and to use the cannon as a standalone shore defence of some sort. Would be nice to have a regular cannon variant, along with the artillery computer variant, though. But the Centurion already exists for that purpose... apart from that, an additional artillery variant would be nice, but given how close we are to release, I can live without it.
-
ambientAnim problem on a dedicated server
SuicideKing replied to canadian1337's topic in ARMA 3 - MISSION EDITING & SCRIPTING
His original code on the wiki has a syntax error, if that's what you mean - should be local this instead of local [this] if it didn't work despite that, then idk... -
ambientAnim problem on a dedicated server
SuicideKing replied to canadian1337's topic in ARMA 3 - MISSION EDITING & SCRIPTING
That has been my experience too, with the function. According to @pierre MGI on the BI WIKI comments.. https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/BIS_fnc_ambientAnim if (local this) then {[this,"SIT2"] call BIS_fnc_ambientAnim} // OK, best way I don't know if it works on a dedicated server, but pierre MGI says it works on a self hosted server, presumably for remote clients as well. -
If it creates a crash dump, I assume Dwarden would be interested.
-
already possible via config mod. none of the vanilla maps are that big to justify that by default, imo. I think you're exaggerating the situation to be honest. It can't sink anyway. It's perfectly usable without full C-RAM functionality. Design your scenarios accordingly.
-
Interesting! How would they differentiate say, a Russian MiG-29 from a Polish one, for example? I'm assuming they use an additional IFF check after that? Yeah i was thinking of non radar equipped vehicles. Didn't know they put them on other vehicles IRL. I'm...probably just a bit vary of it becoming like the old magic radar thing. But if they're careful... it could work. Yeah, fair enough then!
-
I had hoped some sort of basic IFF functionality would have been implemented with/after Jets, so i do think this is a good idea. Of course, IFF shouldn't work for ground vehicles. On the other hand, i think incoming radar signals should be identified automatically, since a Shikra and a Black Wasp wouldn't share the same radar emitter, nor would say a Cheetah and a Rhea. Anyway, the vehicle type is identified automatically, so if you know that much then i think the side is easy to guess. Of course, it would lead to NATO units inside CSAT aircraft being identified as CSAT... which is probably not a bad thing :P But yeah it's a weird situation at present. Players know who they're fighting so IFF isn't a big deal if the vehicle name is displayed. The AI doesn't seem to do much with this information. If an IFF system is present, then maybe only the type (tank, apc, truck, car, etc) of the vehicle should be displayed, if at all?
-
https://feedback.bistudio.com/
-
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
No, they're talking about the laser guided missiles with cruise mode set. Oukej's gif there doesn't have anything to do with ARMs. ARMs have been on dev for a couple of weeks now, and are now on RC. -
PhysX in Arma 3 runs on the CPU not GPU.
-
this https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Sensors_config_reference#maxFogSeeThrough ? seems only to be about fog... it's also worth noting that when looking through thermal optics, objects hidden behind smoke can't be seen iirc.
-
With the Freedom I would just use (or not use) what i wanted for the mission, I'm probably going to do the same with the destroyer. As far as I'm aware, smoke works like countermeasures do*. So the missile will indeed lose lock and sometimes fly off in a random direction (at least, that's what I've seen happen). This is intended, due to #enginelimitations. I do wonder whether the vehicle's concealment w.r.t. sensors couldn't be increased during this time, but it would have to be directional, which is where i think the main problem lies. *of course, once deployed smoke will prevent AI and vehicles from visually seeing you, but sensors remain unaffected.
-
As far as I've been able to figure out, ARH missiles only take over from the main tracking radar in the terminal phase (unless very close, in the case of a "maddog" launch, for example). For Arma's purposes, "very close" should probably mean 1km or so. From wikipedia: and There is only one in-line citation here so this could well be outdated or inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_radar_homing EDIT: Actually, what I would propose is (cc: @nodunit @oukej ) - Let the ARH missiles have relatively short sensor ranges (1-3km maybe, based on how advanced the missile is, and compared to the total range of the primary platform it's fired from) IIRC they already have datalink support. Let them use datalink to acquire and follow targets. This could be either from the side (e.g. any radar on BLUFOR with an uplink enabled) or just the launch vehicle (if this is even possible). Whether the datalink is from the side or vehicle could be dependent on how advanced the missile is (e.g. AMRAAM C need a feed from its vehicle, AMRAAM D can use any radar on the same side). Once the missiles have closed in to their own seeker's range, they can go autonomous. If the guiding radar feed is cut off before this point, then they should continue on the same path in LOAL mode (if their intended tech level in the game is supposed to support that, of course). This should, IMO, be the general mechanism for missiles in Arma (whether ARH or not), but one may of course disagree. :P
-
see:
-
I remember this being reported before Tanks was released as well - iirc it affects the Marid and Gorgon as well.
-
it has nothing to do with active radar on helicopters - it requires an RWR, which only the pawnee and hummingbird lack. It does require an ARH seeker on the missile, though.
-
Tomahawks incoming? :P yeah doesn't even have to be too elaborate. just a "simple" ladder tube would be cool too, if possible.
