Strike_NOR

@bis_iceman Thanks for the insight and transparent attitude :) These things are nice to know, makes you appreciate that there are more cogs in the machinery that all come together before something is uploaded to the devbranch! Looking forward to monday. Have a great weekend!

Sooeh. You got any of them devbranch updates? Working overtime maybe? Or huge upload file :) Was getting hopeful about seeing tweaks to them missile profiles and such :) Either way, have a great well-earned weekend!

Magnificent work man! Amazing what you are able to get out of this game :D

Hence new armor mechanics, new warheads and sensor types. To put it differently. Try using the AT-3 Malyutka in RHS (MCLOS) and hit something with that. It's much more challenging, not overpowered and very rewarding to master. That said, MCLOS is basically outdated, but SACLOS and other types of predicted lead missile systems (NLAW) are still "harder" to use than Fire and forget Javelins. As for warheads. The RPG-7 system that Syndikat uses has a wide range of warheads IRL. I wouldn't say that the RHS RPG-7 is easy to master, which makes it more fun to use imho.

When I'm reading through all of our debating back and forth, I realize these things are better off in the "Sensors" thread, seeing that we have shifted the discussion towards sensors, rather than the new improvements (flight profiles/weapon improvements). I will post seeker-related stuff there from now on. In terms of the current implementation of flight profiles, and possibly shaped charge simulation, there are some relevant points to be made: New fire modes and warheads (top attack/dir) should be available for certain airborne missiles aswell to better distinguish their purposes. There should be some really clear guidelines as to which firemode/warhead is optimal for each situation. And to BIS, regarding risks of implementing advanced features this late in the game: I read a book once on game-theory while I was contemplating designing a strategic board-game (plans are on hold for now). According to the author, the reason we love games is largely due to our brains being wired to reward "making sense" of stuff. It has to puzzle together bits of information, to understand a mechanic/system and be able to master it. During this process, the mind rewards us for learning new things. It feels good to struggle with something for a little bit, and then overcome the challenge and master it. However though, once you are done - it becomes a sort of "muscle memory" and you do it on autopilot. Just imagine the following: You are learning to drive. Each trip with your mom or dad is exhilarating, as you focus intensely on traffic, shifting, looking in mirrors, and it feels fantastic to get your drivers license in the end! However, a few years later - driving is a chore. It no longer challenges you, and you stop enjoying the act of driving itself. We can all relate in games. If you play some competitive match, and you are "owning" the other team, it becomes really boring and your brain makes up "minigames" to keep things interesting. "Hmmm, this is too easy. Let's try winning by just using melee attacks instead!". And so you see, you fight boredom. I dare argue, that one of the things that make simulators and games like ArmA so fun, is that they are hard to master. ArmA and many simulators are brutally unforgiving when the action starts. One mistake and you are dead. Game over. Sometimes, the first bullet fired in a scenario, can be the one that zips through your head. There are no shields, indicators or tips to help you locate the shooter or cause of death. I believe that since the challenge is not only to get headshots or score the most points, but actually survive each and every encounter, it makes it thus more rewarding to succeed! TL;DR Bringing new mechanics into the game, also means there new stuff to learn. The mind can start training itself on new armor mechanics, new warheads, new flight profiles etc and master the role of Anti-Tank infantry. There's something nice about specializing, just as you would when piloting a Heli. I know Dslyexci is a very talented pilot, because choppers are hard and unforgiving to fly in ArmA 3 compared to AAA games like battlefield. It requires hours of practice to get that good. But you don't need hours to learn the basics. So when considering adding new more complex mechanics, also remember that learning and exploring new things introduces challenges to the brain and creates good feelings and satisfaction when mastering them. Punchline: It also makes killing that tank SO much more satisfying, knowing that it actually is difficult, rather than a "one click insta-kill". It makes nailing that heli-insertion feel so badass, because it requires skill to do so. It makes sniping that officer at a long distance so epic, because the bullet dropped so far. It makes ArmA stand out from the other "killstreak frenzy games" or action-movie Michael Bay constant action stuff. So I say yes to new fire modes, yes to new warhead types (bye to multipurpose omni-kill stuff) and yes to new sensor types. Peace, out!

@da12thMonkey and @scavenjer I can totally see what you mean, and I get where you're coming from. It's in fact a very good point. I guess the way I would try to introduce this is by slamming it together with Tanks DLC as weapon guidance overhaul (as already hinted in SITREP) and announcing changes there. Additionally, the names would not be suffixed by A,B,C,D, but rather "Scalpel IR" "Scalpel Laser", "Scalpel Radar". The naming could be standard for all weapons with different seekers, across all factions for easy recognition. Lastly, a VR training mission that quickly demonstrates/teaches each guidance type, and how they behave. Could simply be a single heli, with one of each missile loaded, and one target for each missile type to fire on. But.... will it break backward compatibility? Is it necessary? Are current missiles OP? Does this achieve balance? Are tanks sitting ducks even with new missile seekers? Many questions should be answered before even considering the steps I suggested above. I am personally very fond of realism and realistic options. Yet again none of my friends RL seem to understand why I play ArmA, when I can play CSGO or World of Tanks..... ;)

This right here!! Force players to choose between SACLOS, IR-seeking, Radar- or Laserguided variants. Because if every player is opting for the same omni-weapon, then what's the point of the rest of the weapons/vehicles (Kajman FTW)? Besides. Using saclos or laser guidance will force helis to use a gunner to aim it. Unless LOAL is introduced and a FAC can lase it for you. Either situation requires teamwork to function. IR missiles can only lock on active vehicles and radar can have better locking range, but enemy has a higher chance of detecting you (RWR).

I didn't make myself clear enough perhaps. The sniper team I was using as an example, picked a Laserdesignator as rangefinder device (as popularly seen in online CTI scenarios etc). In other words, it's an accidental ignorant choice by the snipers, who should be using a laser-rangefinder such as the Vector Nite, which can not designate targets for guided munitions in any way. @oukej has reassured that the number you read in the games rangefinder, is actually a "cheat" way to do it to save performance. Instead of "pinging" an area with a simulated laser, you just have the game engine draw a line and measure the length of it and feed it directly into the rangefinder. To make the rangefinder appear less cheaty, the refresh rate of the rangefinder should be slower (once per second perhaps) or triggered by button.

Hmm... I can see the vehicle glasses crushing at the exact time that the missile disappears (detonates and creates submunition). I may be wrong, but I think what's happening here is that the missile detects the Strider, creates submunition, and sends it through the Strider (overpenetration), the explosion behind is the projectile impacting the ground after penetrating (and damaging) the strider. Maybe @oukej can fill us in. I have already reported that the moment the missile "disappears", there should be an explosion in the air, and the submunition, technically, doesnt explode, but should look like a tracer round (that burns out after about 3-4 meters) simulating the HEAT "projectile" (jet). Shaped charge jet pressure penetrating a plate: Shaped charge "Behind armor effects" (The huge flash being molten copper from the charge, mixed with steel from the penetrated plate and the jet itself): A few small edits due to @Damian90's remarks, to avoid any misunderstanding.

@Ollie Hillman good sir. I am going to be friendly towards you and give you a few comments on your humble request. You are absolutely right. There's no confirmed new game, and hence, no correct forum to post this. At the moment, most of the ArmA community are speculating in what "ArmA 4" will be. We have some strong suspicions towards a new and upgraded game engine (Enfusion), which, I think we all can agree, is one of the most desired improvements. If you have played Operation Flashpoint (2001), then you have played ArmA 3 at it's core. The platform has been improved over the years, but it's coming to the point where you are reaching the limits of the game engine. I suspect this is the major reason for why ArmA 3 is notorious for it's performance issues. I have a pretty decent PC, but put me in a life server and everything goes horribly wrong on the performance side! Yes, you will take heat, but I disagree in your last point. ArmA has sort of a "monopoly" in the game market, because nobody else is doing ArmA. There are no AAA games that come close to the ArmA experience, and no, Squad can not be compared. I own both Squad and ArmA, and they provide completely different experiences - especially when it comes to freedom of choice and customization. No matter how old you are, it is a matter of setting yourself priorities and teaching yourself patience. There's one area that consoles really lag behind, which is simulations. Flight simulators, tank simulators, ship, train, space etc... even combined arms simulators such as ArmA, require much more power from your "rig" and better control options. A gamepad is suitable for Arcade-style games, and pseudo-realistic games such as, I'm sorry, Dragon Rising. I played Dragon Rising on my Xbox360 and it was really fun, for a short while. After I finished the campaign I was like "meh, glad this was free to download with my gold membership" and proceeded to uninstall it. I see you have a lot of ideas of what it should be, but let's be honest. There's a reason that ArmA has been around for so many years, and dragon rising doesn't seem to get a successor. Bohemia Interactive have found their niche, and there's a market for it. There's no other sandbox game out there, that simulates combat from infantry to supersonic jets, with such a devoted community and talented modders. The mod support make up 70% of the reason for me personally to buy ArmA. It's like, yeah the official content is interesting and keeps me playing it through to the end, but the 2035 theme makes me feel a little "detached". Therefore, once all of the vanilla content has been played through, I enjoy building my own missions, trying different scenarios, installing new mods and experiencing new stuff every single time I fire up the game. All of the things you listed in the "Post edit detailed explanation" can or has already been done in ArmA 3. Therefore, Bohemia if you are reading this, my opinion is that the core feature that you have going for you with the ArmA series are the following: Sandbox game with powerful mission editor Highly moddable with lots of tools to create new content Large maps with a decent compromise of detail (beautiful from afar, and up close). Realistic approach to as much as possible in the game (sounds, effects, graphics, ballistics etc etc) Single, and multiplayer - with hundreds of possible game modes and missions due to content creation tools. And I think I speak for many when I say these are your areas where improvement is warmly welcomed: Better AI (Especially pathfinding for infantry and vehicles, tactics, coordination, variation). More efficient game engine (yes, it's time for new technology and an engine tailored for the next 10 years of ArmA). Bury that action-menu so deep, it becomes a fossile of a time long forgotten.

A few improvements would be very useful now, but honestly the train has likely left with Jets DLC over half a year ago. Map click waypoints/GPS markers for aircraft These would allow pilots, either on ground or in air, to map out their course and visualize them in the game (HUD or HSI instruments). TGP Slew to GPS marker. This would allow players to effectively mark an area on the map, press a key to slew the TGP and watch it immediately on the PIP or by entering the TGP camera view. That would be a huge improvement for pilots, and make them more effective in target acquisition. CCRP - Continuous Calculated Release Point This weapon release mode, has the pilot squeezing the fire-button and holding it until the aircraft computer decides that it is time to drop. This is perfect for level bombing because the pilot doesn't have to see the target with his eyes (i.e dive-bomb). The pilot would simply fly towards the target, align a vertical line in the HUD with the target indicator box (which makes sure you are aimed horizontally), then squeeze and hold the button. Once you reach the optimal drop-point, the weapon will automatically release and you can keep on flying straight. This method (CCRP) is the no 1 method to deliver bombs in asymmetric warfare, because you are always well above anti-air threats and enemies have a hard time visually spotting or hearing you. Level autopilot For us busy, multitasking pilots. It would be a godsend to have a level autopilot, that simply holds your altitude and course steady. This way, you can look at the map, look in the TGP view, or simply cruise from A to B without worrying about crashing into terrain or wingmen.

This is not how laser guided bombs work in real life though. Targeting pods can find laser spots from other designators by using a feature called "laser spot search" or laser spot track. In this mode, the tgp will automatically slave to the laser spot and stabilize. The aircraft usually has an advanced mission computer that can, together with its navigation system, calculate the exact GPS position of the laser spot. Then the pilot "saves" the gps coordinate to the mission system and lines up his aircraft for attack. The aircraft now has the ability to levelbomb (CCRP) or divebomb (CCIP) at the target coordinates. However, the bomb will never know anything about these coordinates. The pilot/aircraft aims the bomb as precisely as possible at the target and drops. The bomb now follows a ballistic trajectory. Once the bomb seeker detects the correct laser, it starts maneuvering towards it. It's usually just to reduce the impact radius from say 25-50m to 2-3 meters. Advanced bombs have a GPS/Laser hybrid. It uses laser as primary guidance, but if the signal is lost, it returns to the initial GPS position which was available at the time of launch

....... ಠ⌣ಠ Copy that! :)

Unless I'm mistaking. The Wipeout has no radar. It has a "visual" sensor though. Apparrently, it seems that the AI dispenses countermeasures based on two things. A, have I been locked somehow? B, Has someone fired at me. If these criterias both fulfill, then dispense countermeasures. That varsuk must have a clairvoyant commander to be able to sense a passive sensor looking at him!

Thanks for testing. I would expect that whichever laser the sensor locked first, was the one closest to the sensor field of view center, or boresight. I would expect that the bombs do NOT auto-home to the target area, unless there is a laser target there, and the bomb can visually see it within sensor field of view/range. (sounds like locking the target with vehicle sensors, somehow influenced bomb target tracking too, if I understand you correctly). I was hoping that target identification/side is the same as when playing against infantry or hostile vehicles. They are treated as either friendly, or hostile, not as INDEP, OPFOR and BLUFOR. Thanks for confirming.

As far as I can tell, there is only one thing here that can potentially go wrong. Imagine the following COOP mission: A group of players are playing against AI, they are attacking an enemy-held town. Besides various ground forces that will lead the attack, supporting roles are: CAS Jet with GBU's JTAC/Observer Sniper team with laser designator. Now the following happens: The JTAC Discovers an armored vehicle moving around amidst the town, he reports it in to the CAS Jet. CAS Jet receives order, starts flying over the area with TGP and locates the armored vehicle and stabilizes the TGP to track it. As the CAS jet is maneuvering to get ready for an attack run, the JTAC is trying to lase the enemy VIC with his laser designator, but due to the vehicle moving around, it is often hidden from line of sight every now and then. Meanwhile.... the sniper team is in "their own world" using the laser designator to range some enemy infantry patrol, about 150 meters to the side of the armored vehicle. The CAS Jet now closes in on attack, and turns on his laser while dropping the bomb towards the town. Who's laser will the bomb hit? A) The JTAC's laser which is 50% of the time on the target, or 50% of the time on random buildings/stuff that happens to block line of sight B) The snipers expensive "rangefinder" laser. C) The CAS Jet's own TGP Laser which is tracking the target. The reason I ask is because, when I play COOP mission in A3, like Invasion or CTI style missions, many players are just doing their thing. When stuff becomes un-coordinated, there could be several laser targets present at once. How does the bomb know which one to hit? In real life, this can be really dangerous, therefore laser encryption is used. The laser of the designator, and the weapon laser seeker, have to be using the same encryption, or else it will not track. This way, there can be multiple sources of laser designation on the battlefield, each with their encryption code. Whoever is performing a weapon delivery, has to verify that his weapon matches the encryption of the designator, or else things can go very bad, very quickly. I know that ACE 2.0 used to have this feature, and this is probably very much to beg from Vanilla ArmA 3, but as far as I know, the only "discrimination" between lasers at the moment, is side specific. Blue factions can lock BLUFOR Lasers, Grefor factions can lock Grefor lasers, Opfor factions can lock Opfor lasers. Or maybe allies lock allies, I'm not 100% sure how this works in ArmA 3 vanilla to be honest.

I see. So it has to do with simulation speed and "refresh rate" if you will. I guess conditions would worsen with bad FPS, causing the missile to sometimes "overshoot" the target without detecting it. I can live with that, seeing that I only really noticed it when viewing with splendid camera in slow-motion. Yesterday I did some further testing on the missiles and here are my observations: PCML works very well and is highly reliable. It guides perfectly with a lead-pursuit flight path. Top-attack (overfly) mode works reliably, and does serious damage to even the Varsuk. (On average 2 hits are needed for vehicle destruction). Titan AT is not ideal at the moment. While the Top-Attack mode is cool, it consistently misses the target in my experience. It's not compensating for it's velocity vector, which leads to overshooting and 0 damage. The Titan AT is underpowered in terms of damage. I had to use 3-4 missiles on average to destroy a Varsuk. The Titan AT does not seem to use submunition warhead like the PCML does, and I suspect this is why it is underpowered. Now I don't know exactly what missile system the Titan AT is based on, but let's assume its real-life counterpart is a mix of the Javelin and the Spike missile systems. Both of these sport a top-down attack mode, and a direct attack mode. In either case, the shaped charge warhead(s) (javelin is tandem) is facing forwards, this means that the missile has to impact armor with the nose in order to be most effective. However, the motivation for you guys to implement top attack, must be that the player actually needs to have the option. Or else, everyone will just go with whatever always works, and the second firemode becomes obsolete. This brings me back to a few concerns I have: If you are still going to operate with "Indirect Hit"/explosive damage calculation for missiles vs tanks, then it doesn't make a huge difference if the missile hits the sideskirts or the turret. It's still going to do some kind of "splash damage" to the tank. If the launcher seeker has to see the targets center mass in order to get a lock, then how will top-attack be effective against "hull-down" enemies? ( I can't seem to lock the tank if the center of the tanks geometry is hidden, even if I can see the entire turret). Why should one chose direct attack mode now? (Besides close-range engagements.) Realistically it is good against most targets, but in the case of the PCML, its HEAT charge faces downwards, so you lose the ability to penetrate heavy armor. The way I see it here's how you would use the weapons in ArmA now: Titan AT: Top-attack/Dir attack only depends on range to target. Top attack for long range/Direct attack for close range. Damage results are still very indiscriminate between modes. PCML: Top attack for armored targets/Direct attack for anything else. (Technically PCML should be highly ineffective against armor in Direct-Attack mode) However, if you implement penetration mechanics into these weapons (like I think we're seeing in the PCML overfly attack), which mode you use greatly depends on what kind of damage you want to do. Shooting the engine area may cripple the tank, shooting crew compartment may kill crew, shooting tracks may disable mobility etc. With internal damage modules in the tanks and with proper armor penetration, exactly where you hit the tank becomes MUCH more relevant. And therefore, which flight profile you chose also becomes much more relevant. Keep on tuning the Titan AT flight profile :) I am sure it will be a real tank-cracker soon!

This makes good sense for missiles, because of their horizontal velocity, if they lose lock, who knows where they might land(explode). The GBU at least will always hit somewhere nearby.

Hi Oukej! Thanks for the clarification. I see what you mean in the gif, it seems like it spawns a Submunition of type projectile. This is good (simulates EFP/HEAT), which is a huge step forward! I am thrilled to see this finally in arma :) A must-have for tanks DLC! For some reason, when trying this on my PC, there was an "explosion" effect in the vehicles center mass when this happened (vehicle survived), in addition to initial explosion. Will see if I can reproduce this. I have two simple questions for you: Why is the submunition launched at a 45 degree angle downwards, as opposed to 90 degrees? Will you incorporate submunition into Titan AT missile, as this too is a typical HEAT warhead weapon? I've been so lucky to detonate a couple of HEAT warheads in real life for demonstration purposes. Set it up with a 7cm steel plate, some improvised "spaced armor" of steel square tubes filled with sand and a watermelon wearing a steel helmet behind it. Nothing survived. I kept the helmet(s) as a reminder.

@Imperator[TFD] While I can't speak for in-game mechanics like @da12thMonkey here can, I can speak for some real life counterparts: Fact: Generally speaking, GBU-12's are dropped as if they are stupid bombs. In other words, they are manually aimed at the target by pilot. Given that altitude, wind, computer inaccuracies, pilot inaccuracies all come into effect when dropping bombs, the laser guidance is only there for "extra accuracy". The bombs are often dropped in CCRP or CCIP mode, which you can equate to level bombing vs. dive bombing. CCRP is not simulated in vanilla Arma, but CCIP is. In real life, if the laser designator is in the aircraft Targeting pod, the laser will in fact remain off for the entire bomb flight, until the last few seconds. The computer calculates time to impact, and the laser automatically switches on just before. There are two major reasons for this: 1. Enemy with laser-detectors will have very little time to react. 2. Lasing the entire time, will often cause the bomb to correct itself constantly. This means small maneuvers up and down, left and right, which ultimately costs energy. This, in turn, reduces the bomb glide range. If you are lasing a stationary target, switching the laser on in the last 5-6 seconds is often good enough. If you are lasing a moving target, it may be necessary to lase much earlier, because predicting lead can be difficult. In ArmA however, I would expect them to work like @da12thMonkey says. The bomb sensor has X meters range, and X degrees sensor field of view. If the laser is visible within this area, the bomb will automatically pick up the laser and start guiding towards it. Remember that the bomb has to physically "see" the laser. This means you have best chances of hitting targets if: Attack run is being made from the same direction that the laser is emitted (this way the laser spot will be on the same side of the target as the bomb). Laser spot is on the top/side of the target. There are no obstacles between launch vehicle and laser spot. This is why the top-attack mode for hellfires and javelins are so good, because they can fly over hills, bushes, buildings, trees etc and dive down once they pick up the target. Hoping for LOAL mode for laser-guided missiles too!

@KiTooN @oukej This is exactly what I am reproducing also. The missile should correct itself so that its velocity vector is going for the target, not just point the nose at it. Seems like forward/horizontal missile inertia is still very relevant at the terminal flight phase. :) Other than that, it seems the PCML is working great. Leading the target majestically, while the titan AT in top attack is lagging the target a little bit. (You can see this by looking at how the PCML adjusts course immediately after launch and flies in a straight line towards predicted impact. The Titan AT seems to always curve during flight, as if always aiming directly at the target, instead of ahead of it. This would help explain why it is missing its target in @KiTooN's example too) Edit: It's easy to always focus on the negatives, but I have to say that besides from these small guidance issues, things are shaping up for Tanks DLC. It's always exciting to see what the next "feature" reveal will be :) . I must admit, I was not expecting improved flight trajectories for anti-armor weaponry, but I dare to dream, that the flight envelope is a necessary step towards better armor penetration mechanics :). From the top of my head, the major advantages to top-down attack are: Obstacles between launcher and target are less relevant (less risk of hitting trees, losing line of sight, better against hull-down tanks etc). Missile becomes harder to defeat (if any active protection systems are present, the missile is changing paths, instead of flying straight). Armor is generally thinner on top of tanks, which is why the Shaped charge, or Explosively formed penetrators excel from top down angles. From this list alone, I am hoping the last point is a nod towards HEAT or EFP simulation :D The PCML technically doesn't use "top-down attack", but rather "overfly" mode. It flies up just before the target, not immediately after launch, and the shaped charge is facing 90 degrees downwards, so it should detonate exactly over the top of the tank, sending a molten-copper+high pressure focused blast into the turret. It currently looks very good ingame, but it spawns an awkward indirect hit explosion on the tank it seems. I hope that's just a placeholder :p

So far 2 of 3 top down attacks with the Titan AT on Varsuk caused the missile to overshoot and land ~5m beyond the target. Still close enough to annoy the RCWS turret and get rekd by 50cal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Useful note: I was on Tanoa, slight incline, shooting downards on Varsuk, stationary. Probably no more height difference than 15-20 meters. Range about 700m.

Isnt this the cockpit/pilot LOD which masks the exterior? Would it not be possible to remove the cargo area geometry for that LOD to avoid this issue?

Like others have said. This vehicle is top notch quality. It's easily at least as good as vanilla content! Excited to see more :)

"ENGINE No relevant EXE changes today" Maybe not relevant today. But tomorrow :) These are signs of the prophecy of true armor simulation for ArmA3.