SuicideKing
-
Content Count
289 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by SuicideKing
-
I really hope this behaviour is removed for the sake of the game. Even "realism" wise it seems ARH missiles only use their own missiles in the terminal phase, unless shot at close range, so for SAMs the lock should rely on the radar feed being functional. Yes to the former. As for the latter, so far they've only mentioned that the Black Wasp, Shikra and Gryphon can equip them, but I don't know if this just to do with default loadouts and anti-radiation sensors. Ever since Jets i've wished that all the static radar objects (or the radar towers on ships) in the game could be configured as working radars. Could be a feature of the "Edit Terrain Objects" module too. Heck, even if we just got an invisible radar object that could be placed on static radar objects (and could be destroyed - could lock and kill it with HARMs, explosion would destroy the building too) then I'd be happy. Something proper would be awesome though!
-
A few people i know tried to do some stuff with road networks a year or two ago. Tanoa had quite some issues with road layout and connectivity, which i think makes it worse than Altis, for example.
-
iirc the official word is to use a column formation. can't find the post though.
-
I was hoping this would mean that missiles that don't have LOS won't be able to auto acquire targets, but i don't know either.
-
Scripting Discussion (dev branch)
SuicideKing replied to Dwarden's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Yeah i was facing this a while ago with the Hummingbird + editors, certainly is a bug of some sort somewhere. Haven't tried Quicksilver's method yet, simply because i was too lazy to do it lol. -
To be honest... I'd be a bit annoyed if the only ARM variant we got was a jack of all trades like that. I don't mind if there are some advanced multi-seeker missiles, but I sure as heck want a pure anti-radiation thing to be the base variant.
-
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
doArtilleryFire also exists though, so it could work with LOAL functionality in the case of the AI. Presumably Sh_155mm_AMOS_guided works this way as well (used with the M4 Scorcher). -
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I'm going to have a field day if those two vehicles get datalink support... :D -
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I think the solution here is to get radar-based systems to stop locking if they're out of ammo... -
My fear is that an approximated system coupled with Arma distances pretty much means there's little need to bother with locking in most engagements. Platoon level or even company level operations will usually have 1 to 5 friendly aircraft in the air at a time (including helicopters), so there's no real need to be careful most of the time. This only feels like it's relevant in public servers. More specifically regarding the BIM-120D (aka ammo_Missile_AMRAAM_D) - the missile has a sensor and lock range of 13km. Sensor has a 100 degree cone, lock cone is 140 degrees. So to me it seems like in a lot of cases, simply firing the missile at where the enemy is/most likely to be will be enough, unless the missiles are tweaked further to reflect this new change (e.g. AMRAAM's own sensor should have a much lower range, maybe?). I don't know where this ranks on the "realism" scale. Anyway, I'd also argue that we're going for deeper and more interesting gameplay - realism may or may not fit in well there (especially given that so much has to be simplified or approximated because of "engine limitations" or just dev time). This is something I would like to know as well...
-
LOAL for missiles does sound potentially a bit "OP" though, especially given it seems that it's going to be available for ARMs as well. This is a new thing for me though - so I may be wrong, but going by web sources it seems that ARH missiles need at least initial guidance from the launch platform (you mentioned this in the other thread too). I really hope this is not going to work BVR and only for kills within visual range, with a reasonably high failure rate. Maybe the acquisition cone should be narrower too? Right now it's a massive 100 degrees on the BIM-120D. There's an old discussion on the DCS forums about how the AMRAAM having this capability with a wide cone was detrimental to gameplay. Information from wikipedia suggests this should only really work in moderately close range, since the missile's seeker isn't that powerful. Dumbfired missiles should probably be more susceptible to chaff too. I don't know if planned but SAMs should probably not have this, imo. Still feel that they should use SARH anyway - would let people dodge missiles by hiding behind terrain, thus breaking radar lock from the base station. This would be quite useful for IR missiles though, especially for the CAS planes. Seems like the real world ASRAAM has this capability - albeit only at close range.
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
They all have RWRs (i.e. passive radar with allowsMarking = 0). The Anti-radiation sensor is the same thing with allowsMarking = 1 (and with less range in the default template). This is currently only enabled only for the Wipeout and Neophron (look for AntiRadiationSensorComponent), hence this question. class SensorTemplateAntiRadiation: SensorTemplatePassiveRadar { componentType = "PassiveRadarSensorComponent"; class AirTarget { minRange = 8000; maxRange = 8000; objectDistanceLimitCoef = -1; viewDistanceLimitCoef = -1; }; class GroundTarget { minRange = 8000; maxRange = 8000; objectDistanceLimitCoef = -1; viewDistanceLimitCoef = -1; }; angleRangeHorizontal = 90; angleRangeVertical = 90; allowsMarking = 1; }; I hope this answers your first concern too - given a set of radiation signatures, you'll need to be able to select which one to send the missile to. For example: So the point is not that it's difficult to implement, but the question is which aircraft will get this AntiRadiationSensorComponent (i.e. passive radar with allowsMarking = 1)? -
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Well, now that we know anti-radiation missiles are a thing, it would be nice to know whether all aircraft will get the anti-radiation sensors or not. IMO it would be unfortunate if only the CAS jets got this, as that limits the assets we can use in missions. I think there are two reasonable ways of doing this. Decide to give anti-radiation sensors to all planes (except the blackfish of course) and both gunships. Let the mission makers decide on the loadout or disable the sensor. Probably the best way to go about it imo. Go down the "realism" route. This would mean planes like the Wipeout and Buzzard do not get this capability, but the others do (except VTOLs i suppose). Would really appreciate hearing thoughts on this - I don't want to dream up missions that can't be made! ;) -
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
So does this only work if there's at least 1 (friendly) radar painting the target? Otherwise it would seem to conflict with "activeSensorAlwaysOn" parameter that was added a while back? Laser seeker for the Macer please :P At least the Macer-II and CSAT/AAF equivalents... p.s. Thanks for the ARMs! :D -
hey @warkonaut, was wondering if it's possible to make the damage restored upon revive by a FAK = 50% of the total health, or even better, configurable? Right now it completely restores health as far as I know. This makes medics sorta less important. We had scripted a workaround but the less we have to hack BI systems the better, I feel.
-
The AH-9 windshield marker was much needed, good to see it make it in at last!
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
F/A-181 has a IR sensor that can detect ground targets up to 2000m, without adding vehicle specific modifiers. The Sentinel can detect ground targets up to 3000m away. See https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Sensors#Vehicles . You may want to test with the A-164 and To-199 as well. That said I do think the Black Wasp's sensors need to be longer range for ground targets, and that Macers should have a laser seeker as well (or at least the Macer II). Edit: can't speak for the AI issues though.- 957 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
They already have a 6km lock range, provided the plane's IR sensor can see that far, and the target vehicle is warm. Sounds like in your case you're only seeing it once it's appeared on the visual sensors. Give the vehicle a waypoint or force its engine on. Also make sure you're testing without mods to make sure nothings interfering with things. I've noticed in the past that IR sensors don't work beyond your view distance (object or overall, i can't remember which one), so try setting your view distances to 6km as well. -
Yeah, i get that, but what i meant to say is, "use terrain masking"/"fly nap-of-the-earth". Mostly just wondering if this information can be used to improve AI flight. Maybe a better way to phrase it is "plot the flight path within the green zone at a given altitude, if you're not in the green zone then find the nearest connecting green zone or increase altitude" - basically how a human would use it. Some sort of pathfinding at a given altitude - imagine a plane surface at height X meters intersected by the terrain. Effectively forms a 2D maze. Now you calculate a flight path through all the undisturbed regions, if you reach a dead end then increase height until you're no longer blocked (i suppose in TAWS terms, the point at which the indicator goes orange/red), then continue plotting as before. Flight path would probably have to be precalculated before takeoff/during init for the sake of performance, i guess? Dunno if this is within the scope of A3 though, and i'm probably way beyond my depth here haha
-
Can the the AI be made to use this system, perhaps? Although i'd guess they use something similar already, but i was thinking... if we could set which zone the AI had to fly in... say I set in the editor that the AI needs to fly in the red or orange zone, with an altitude of 50m ATL, then it plots its flight paths through valleys and stuff (where the colour for the terrain would be red in the nav panel) at an alt of 50m from the ground. I.e. it stays 50m above the terrain but such that there are terrain features >=50m around it, unless there's an actual threat of crashing. I don't know if I'm making sense lol. Is a similar animation planned for the Marid as well?
-
It's already fairly good, to be honest, perhaps needs a bit more flexibility for customization and it's good enough for most cases. But as for a "Medical DLC"? Wot R3vo said.
-
I think he made a typo, should just be unloading.
-
Aww that nerfs my DIY SAM truck. :P But I can see why that would be required. Thanks for the details!
-
Some specific thoughts/issues with the current state of affairs: Tweak/Sensors: Given that both the Nyx Recon and Strider (unarmed) have laser designators, may be a good idea to give the FireFIST a laser seeker after all (or add a variant with it). Previously i though it's unnecessary, but given that two vehicles on the AAF side have laser designators, it seems weird that none of their weapons have support for this. Tweak/Sensors: The last time i tried shooting SRAAMs from the CAS jets it wasn't really viable, given how the IR sensors on those are aligned to the camera (and even then, seem to have strange angles). I was wondering if it's possible to have a second IR sensor on them that is nose aligned and only works for air targets? Ditto for helicopters like the Blackfoot. These aren't meant for dogfights but prevents them being useless for self-defence. Request/Vehicle_Weapons: Wondering about where the team stands on variants of missiles like laser-guided Macers and anti-radiation missiles? (Edit: I know the latter was apparently WIP at some point) Bug/Structures: House (Large,Abandoned) windows block grenades (problem with Geometry LOD) https://feedback.bistudio.com/T84758 . Causes grenades to bounce back at the person throwing them. Bad for obvious reasons. Bug/Sounds: Incorrect sound effect inside Military Cargo Towers https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123851 Bug/Sounds: Bunker (Tower): Indoor sound environment used on 1st floor https://feedback.bistudio.com/T122026 EDIT: Just remembered more things... Bug/Spectator: Markers disappear in End Game spectator free camera mode https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127526 (still an issue post 1.82) Bug/Spectator: Spectator camera can reportedly "run out of stamina". Seems related to the above bug. I was told... I'm guessing that the stamina/hurt effect is drawing over the markers, causing them to disappear.
-
bug 17 years old bug in A3 - 'A fallen static objects' geometries bug'
SuicideKing replied to RozekPoland's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
As RozekPoland said, to prevent AI and players from shooting from inside/through things they shouldn't be able to. I do agree that the fire and view geometry addition to such fallen objects would be good for gameplay.
