SuicideKing
-
Content Count
289 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by SuicideKing
-
Arma 3 STABLE Server 2.16 "profiling / performance binary" feedback
SuicideKing replied to Dwarden's topic in ARMA 3 - SERVERS & ADMINISTRATION
Hey, Thanks for all the work on stability and performance. Great to see multithreading improvements being added over the months, I hope it ends up in 2.08! However, I'm still struggling with memory related crashes when using CDLC assets (particularly GM). More recently, these have been DX11 out of memory CTDs. Tickets here: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T163062 (2022) https://feedback.bistudio.com/T160056 (2021) Mission editing seems to trigger it the most. I have watched the VRAM usage on my GTX 1660 Ti (6GB) creep all the way to 5.8GB and keep going, when using Very High or Ultra textures. This ultimately leads to a CTD. If I use High textures then it only creeps up to 4.x GB and thus remains stable. Previously, I used to have crashes due to running out of swap file when using CDLC assets (both GM and CSLA). These days I do not seem to have these issues, but for reference, these were the relevant tickets I made at the time: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T160057 (2021) https://feedback.bistudio.com/T153532 (2020) But now I just set my page file to 16GB (+ 16GB RAM), and it does not happen with Very High textures. I think it might still happen with Ultra, however. Note that this doesn't happen with just vanilla assets even with Ultra textures. Would be really great to have some fix, either better memory management or something, especially with 4K textures. This is probably the only stability issue I have encountered with the game in the last couple of years. P.s. using performance binaries in all cases. -
So there's a crash associated with how Arma handles large textures that's become a bit of a persistent problem when trying to use Global Mobilization assets. The game seems to be unable to handle memory efficiently after a point, and then the system runs out of it. Happens on both stable and perf/profiling branch, although with the performance binary it didn't crash but still went down to 1fps for a prolonged period of time (i.e. game freezes or responds very slowly). It's reproducible. I have made a ticket here: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T153532 I've logged system data while testing and uploaded a bunch of CTD reports (as generated by the Arma launcher) that occurred over the last few months. Back in April it was DX11 out of memory errors, then i increased page file significantly and that settled down. However the issue cropped up again with a general memory access issue. Increasing page file is a workaround but it's not a fix, it only delays the slowdown and eventual crash. I've seen the issue a lot on the global mobilization discord, so it's definitely a widespread problem and a bit of a headache. the repro steps may seem excessive but it has happened during normal mission editing too. I will post the ticket in the GM discord so that other people might provide additional inputs as well.
-
Some feedback/requests related to the flatbed/cargo trucks and ViV. Would it be possible to make the HMG/GMG turrets and AA turrets compatible with ViV? It would make it easier to do something like this: Of course, you will need to allow the turrets to fire... so either this is allowed in all open vehicles like the HEMTTs, or you could introduce a script command to override default ViV turret lock. I detailed such a solution here: Of course it is also possible to use attachTo, but it's a bit more tedious to figure out the correct position. ViV will make it easier. It would also be nice to enable loading of boxes (ammo etc) into the HEMTTs via drag and drop.
-
Scripting Discussion (dev branch)
SuicideKing replied to Dwarden's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Currently, vehicles loaded inside other vehicles cannot use/move their guns and turrets, including FFV positions. Sometimes, it might be desirable to allow such behaviour, such as firing from the flatbed HEMMT. Could we get a script command that overrides the default turret lock while the vehicle is loaded into another vehicle/rack/ViV container? something like transportVehicle enableViVTurrets true; //enables turrets for all loaded vehicles transportVehicle enableViVTurrets [true, loadedVehicle]; //enables turrets for particular cargo vehicle (optional) //or transportVehicle enableViVTurrets loadedVehicle; //enables turrets for particular cargo vehicle transportVehicle disableViVTurrets loadedVehicle; //disables turrets for particular cargo vehicle and of course appropriate getters (e.g. isViVTurretsEnabled). -
Flatbed and Cargo HEMTT's are shown as restricted access for non-Contact owners. Will it be like when the expansion hits main branch?
-
Oh, alright. My mistake. I have had Apex pretty much since launch so couldn't verify, had to go off memory. Camo is still locked to the faction (NATO vs NATO Pacifc, etc) though, and with the new camo for LDF etc it would be good if the vehicle customisation screen from the editor allowed selection of all available camo textures for each vehicle (just like Virtual Arsenal from the main menu does). Thus https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123252 is still a valid ticket. Cheers! 🙂 BTW, it seems there's an issue that has a relatively simple fix and was reported a year ago. Apparently will be helpful for all community terrains. Given that work is going on for Livonia, it might help with that as well. Community Terrain Dust Effect Conflict (+= for nested arrays) https://feedback.bistudio.com/T131130
-
This is encouraging to hear. But does BI plan this for Apex reskins too? iirc it was the case when Apex launched, and restricting access to reskinned vanilla weapons and vehicles is a bit strange. For example, a green NATO pacific slammer is locked to non Apex owners, so is the green MX. Given that it's been 3 years since Apex released, it would be nice to merge those with the base game. It's anyhow possible to export/import the camo via arsenal or use setObjectTexture to do the same thing for vehicles, so why lock those skins to factions (and by extension, DLC owners)? Related to: https://feedback.bistudio.com/T123252 On a different note, if there are artists that are working on buildings, it would be great to finally be able to throw grenades through the windows of Land_u_House_Big_01_V1_F. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T84758 See Pennyworth's comment as well, it seems to affect another model too. This is a 6 year old bug, kinda sad that it's still in there. And since there are people working on bridges, would be great if light from vehicles wouldn't disappear on every other bridge section. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127520 This sounds like a good way to do it.
-
After 1.88, i noticed that the FOV doesn't reset correctly after i stop looking through a scope.
-
Can the radius of editor placed waypoints be set to -1 as well?
-
So I flew the Cesar BTT after a long time yesterday (on stable), both the racing and non-racing variants. Both of them handle very strangely now, especially the racing version. There's a very strong opposition force to input, like it's being over-damped. Especially obvious with vertical movement. Makes it annoying to fly, and much harder to make fine movements because of the violent counter-force.
-
Seems to be a small bug with how the RWR senses radar contacts, and/or the position of the sensor on the Cheetah/Tigris. I put a Cheetah on a hill. If i put a few H-barriers in front of it, it seems to block the radar "signal" to the RWR of aircraft, even though the radar dish is above the barriers w.r.t LOS to the aircraft. So my guess is that the RWR is checking LOS between the center of the SPAAG and the aircraft (which is blocked until you're sufficiently elevated w.r.t. the SPAAG). Probably should check the LOS between the radar dish and the aircraft? Illustration: Hmm interesting, the AI seems to be happy to use the cannon without radar lock. Although i think the above issue could be making it such that the Cheetah's radar has visibility but the RWR doesn't think it has. Will have to test...
-
Would be interesting to have the guns' fire control system slaved to the radar... Thanks for the response oukej! And yes, I do understand the need for balance in MP. But I feel the balance should come from the systems themselves... so in this case, aircraft can be seen up until overall view distance, maybe plane IR sensors should be able to see that far too? Vehicles can still hide in forests, behind buildings etc, after all, or turn their engines off. Visual sensors could perhaps remain limited to object view distance. Re: server enforced distance... by default it's 1600m, which is completely inadequate for flying, but good for infantry. Heck, in urban or jungle areas we sometimes reduce it to 1200m or 1000m. So if we need air support, we need to rely on scripts to ensure only helicopter or plane crew can see until 6500m, and then have to remind them to turn their object view distance up (since forcing the latter setting isn't something we want to do). Of course, i'm talking about co-op scenarios here, but a large portion of the Arma community does play co-op! To that end, I would again suggest having MP-specific variants of missiles or aircraft sensors, since in my experience the needs of public PvP and community PvE players are not always compatible, and often divergent. I know that would be a lot of work, but at least it would help tailor assets to both sides of the playerbase. While I don't mean to beat a dead horse (and this is anyway the Arma 3 dev branch thread, not the Arma 4 dev branch thread...) but there is as much simulation to do in older conflicts as there is in newer ones - with the exception of things like computer vision, APS, computer networks and the proliferation of thermal optics. Radar and analog IR seekers have been around for quite a while, and even these are only approximated in Arma. The future setting turns many of us off (see: popularity of CUP and RHS), and while we've worked around or just gotten used to Arma 3's assets, we would really like to see a return to older stuff, as that is easier to integrate with the core infantry gameplay. A3's problem has largely been certainty in tactical information but uncertainty in systems, instead of the other way around. This is made worse by a general power creep in gear and vehicles, among other issues.The core infantry stuff is still pretty good, but the combined arms stuff has been hit-and-miss, albeit improved significantly with Helicopters and Tanks, not to mention Jets platform updates and some of the Apex assets.
-
Anti-Air Vehicle Ranges and Effectiveness
SuicideKing replied to HigherDimension's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
I'm pretty sure that's intentional. Having a 5.5km gun range on a 27km or smaller map is too much. I've also seen the AI shoot without a radar lock. -
Macer (and equivalents) need an update Problem: The Macer, Macer II, Kh25, Sharur, and other variants of plane launched ATGMs are currently the most inferior ATGMs in the game. This means that they aren't really usable in scenarios. This is for a number of reasons. From the table it is apparent that they only have IR seekers and no manual guidance (not that manual guidance would help, or be desirable). They have about the same range as Scalpels, and less range than the Jian missiles. Now, from a gameplay point of view, it's important to consider how planes are mostly used in Arma. Primarily they are used as CAS and in conjunction with infantry. i.e. a FAC will call out or designate targets. Less frequently, you end up working without ground support. For example, you may spot some tanks approaching a friendly location, or there's a SPAAG to be dealt with at range. In both cases, planes, unlike helicopters, are moving fairly fast over small maps. Additionally, view distances in Arma are limited by performance constraints. This isn't DCS after all. Consequently, the time spent within lock range is very low, and usually at a distance which is very risky for the aircraft. Further, IR sensors on vanilla aircraft do *not* detect targets beyond object view distance. This means that, if the pilot doesn't have a really high end computer (8700K + DDR4 + NVMe SSD + GTX 1060 or better GPU) then having a pleasant experience while flying CAS with an object view distance of 6km+ is hard. So for most people, the lock distance for a missile is going to be capped by their computer's performance, which in my mind is a very questionable design decision. Then of course there's the fact that the sensor range of the missiles outrange the plane sensors. So the Wipeout and Neophron can see warm ground targets up to 4km away, and the Buzzard can only see 3km away - while their missiles can lock up until 6km away. Now, this makes sense for helicopters, as it forces gunners to look for the heat signature in their optics if they want to engage from a safe range. For planes, this is not good design at all. They're simply moving too fast, and juggling the target camera with other controls is very clunky. It's easier once you find the target and lock the camera, but still, given the short sensor range and view distance limitations, it's a hard one to pull off solo. Moreover, if you're moving at 400kmph, those 3 seconds it takes for the missiles to lock cover a lot of ground. As a result, the question becomes - why wouldn't I use a Scalpel instead of a Macer? Infantry can support the aircraft by designating targets, which the plane can pick up at full range (6km laser sensor), without fiddling around with the camera. Scalpels are as effective as Macers are. So what's the point of the aircraft ATGMs? Suggested solutions: Increase the IR sensor range of the CAS jets to match the ATGM's seeker range (i.e. 6km) Allow detection beyond object view distance. Give (at least some) of the Macer variants the ability to lock on to laser targets. #3 is especially important for the DLC jets, as their CAS capabilities are pretty inferior, and the above mentioned problems are exacerbated as they fly even faster. So something like the Macer II should absolutely have a laser seeker, imo. But as such the CAS jets will benefit immensely from any one (or more) of the above proposed changes, in my experience.
-
Anti-Air Vehicle Ranges and Effectiveness
SuicideKing replied to HigherDimension's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Because the radar would be for the gun. I can't remember if radar lock is necessary for the target lead indicator to work in the game, but IRL something like a Tungushka would have a similar combination. (C) is not true, at least SAMs have proximity fuses in the game. -
Anti-Air Vehicle Ranges and Effectiveness
SuicideKing replied to HigherDimension's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Oh hey look, it's the guy who was ranting about this for a couple of hours on discord about this. 1. No, it's not a problem. AA vehicles are never used alone. You always use a multi-layered AA net. Unicorns don't win wars. 2. Use the long rage radar SAMs systems if you want to outrange helicopters. 3. Titans mounted on the SPAAGs have a range of about 4.5km, but iirc this gets multiplied by the helicopter's IRTargetSize, which for e.g. a Kajman would end up being around 5.2km Scalpels can lock on to a hot target at 6km, can't lock on to a cold target. DAGRs have a range of 5km on a hot target. Even with a warm target, additional noise/stealth multipliers apply to the vehicle. So as people have explained to you multiple times, if you keep your engine off and stay hidden, you can likely engage a helo before it sees you. 4. Play the Gunships showcase, if you're not careful then you'll probably be shot down way before the SPAAG will be in sensor lock range of your missiles. 5. It's a game. Assets are balanced accordingly. 6. Following from 5, the whole island of Altis is some 27km across between its farthest points. Of course you don't have short range missiles covering the whole map. 7. Go play DCS if you want realistic ranges etc. In Arma it's scaled to fit Arma's size, and to make things interesting. 8. Optionally, use mods. 9. See point 1. -
My concern is with co-op of course, since we mostly don't play combined arms in PvP due to various reasons.
-
@Asheara right now the MAAWS can 1-hit a Marid, even with SLAT armour. Is this intentional? The RPG7 seems to be the only thing at present that can't 1-hit a Marid. This is fine as such, but it does mean that against the default Altis factions, including FIA, the Marid doesn't stand a chance. It gets even worse when you consider that the MAAWS is so quiet (and iirc no whistling sound from the rocket either) - it feels like you just explode randomly. At first i thought it was the UGLs causing it! But then I tested it with the MAAWS. Note that i'm certain that i'm hitting the SLAT cage, and i tried from both the front and side.
-
Tanks - Missile flight profiles and weapon improvements
SuicideKing replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
@oukej the SAMs have a bit of an issue - sometimes the launcher tubes can be almost horizontal at launch, causing the missile to hit the ground in front of it. Not sure how much the missile's flight profile can be adjusted to fix this. Maybe a good idea to fix the minimum elevation angle on the launcher instead? -
Updated All in One Config Dumps
SuicideKing replied to Pennyworth's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS - CONFIGS & SCRIPTING
Need the Encore update (1.84) stuff too... -
Possible bugs of the anti-radiation missile
SuicideKing replied to Sc0tt's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
This is probably a good idea. Personally never liked HARM having LOAL anyway, to be honest. -
Maybe try turning their skills up? Especially the general AI subskill. Maybe try assigning the rockets to the pilot instead of the gunner? And same, try increasing their skills
-
The funny thing is, planes get attracted to AA radars popping up on their sensors and fly straight towards them...
-
Would be good to be able to close our own tickets, I have like 10 or more that have been resolved since.
-
Yeah i think extending the fire support module to include the cruise missile may be a good idea (it already has CAS support). A lot of us would love to see women in both military and civilian roles in Arma, but the devs have long made clear that this will not happen in Arma 3. Arma 3 development is winding down anyway. DayZ: Standalone does have women, so hopefully they are included in Arma 4...
