Strike_NOR
-
Content Count
505 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by Strike_NOR
-
Just to illustrate how a catapult seat works in contrast to a catapult + rocket seat with zero-zero capabilities (0 height, 0 speed). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1cnvJO1TF8 I'm really hoping for this supported in vanilla arma (crossing fingers). Oh and btw, the doll from the first launch is totally fine
-
If the remade sound on the Wipeout is anything to judge by, they are making a huge leap in the right direction for Jets DLC!!
-
AAaaah. I've even played dedicated flight sims without shock absorber simulation. It makes a huge difference, especially on rough landings. In real life, aircraft shock-struts contain oil and gas (usually nitrogen) and have various design features that allow quick compression with dampening, and a slow extension of the strut to avoid "kangaroo landings". This is limited by smaller "return orifices" for the oil inside the shock-strut. If aircraft only used springs or compressed gas, it would be like landing on a trampoline. The more you know... ;)
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
Strike_NOR replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
If BIS decide to do datalink guidance or lock-on datalink, it would actually open to door for how most modern SAM systems work too. A dedicated command vehicle/unit with radar for search and/or track, and the other launch-vehicles just use the shared datalink from the command vehicle to select targets and fire. This way, you would only see one active radar on your radar warning display, while there could theoretically be an infinite amount of launchers linked to that one radar source :) It would also allow for advanced weapons to do indirect fire, where you can launch weapons vertically first to clear terrain (or get out of a forest) then shift to horizontal flight towards the target. Either way, they have stated already that semi-active guidance won't make it for Jets DLC, so maybe the future :)- 953 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
The focus is greatly shifting towards SDB's (Small Diameter Bombs) these days. They are guided munitions with very high armor penetration capability, high accuracy (which means less need for explosives), and folding wings. These can glide way further than todays GBU-12 type bombs. This makes for a safer weapon for the pilot (standoff distance) and civilians (less blast radius and higher accuracy). I saw a picture once of one of those sailing through the drivers side window of a truck, just before impact. Airburst is used when you want maximum shrapnel and shockwave effect (large killzone), so generally less wanted for large munitions. 40mm grenades or shells are another story, since they have a more practical use towards entrenched infantry, with a smaller killzone. Smart bombs have really become the new standard these days. Most bombs have some type of guidance, be it laser, GPS or datalink. I would really like to see anti-radiation missiles in ARMA, but I think the devs have confirmed they will not be doing that. I also had high hopes for a semi-active guidance system, but sadly they don't have enough time to make it for jets DLC. Who knows what the future may bring though?
-
I assume everyone on this forum that has access to youtube would at some point have come across the AH-64 guncamera footage. Even with a gyro-stabilized, Inertial Navigation Unit corrected, laser rangefinder adjusted targeting system, the constant changes in target and helicopter movement will throw some shots off. You can clearly see in many of these videos that even when the Fire Control System has calculated lead, it is possible to miss, by a fair amount. Gunners have to train frequently in order to learn the quirks and weaknesses of these advanced systems. It actually takes a fair amount of skill to pull it off, under stressful conditions where your life is at stake. For arma, I think we should hope for an accurate shot when aiming at a steady point when the chopper is holding a steady course, velocity and altitude. These are optimal conditions for target calculation.
-
Yeah I have, but only on a daily inspection level. Other specialists handle the maintenance and repacking. It's a great system, although dated it gets the job done. It's really advanced, almost like a small personal aircraft. People tend to have the misconception that it's just an explosive charge or a catapult that throws the pilot out of the plane, when it's a lot more to it. One of my favorite facts about the ACES II is that it won't deploy the parachute unless you are below a certain altitude (14.000 ft I think?). What that means, is that if you bail out at say, 30.000 ft, you have to sit in the chair going a few hundred knots towards mother earth, and free-fall about 15.000 ft, hoping all the way that the chute will deploy automatically. Of course there is a manual chute deploy override, but if you use that above 14.000 ft, it becomes hard to breathe. The pilot's emergency oxygen supply is attached to the seat, so when you deploy the chute, the oxygen supply is cut. It would be a shame to deploy the chute at 30.000 ft, only to suffocate. Either way I digress. I think a working ejection seat should be supported by vanilla arma. If modders can make such excellent seats such as RHS or ACE 2.0 mod for ARMA II, then why not BI? :) I hope they find time to add it somehow!
-
The Kajman is a fictional aircraft, but is kind of a frankenchopper between the Mi-28 and KA-50 real life counterparts. So i guess it would be fitting to have that kind of system, although difficult to implement. I was more pointing towards a real ejection seat. It would greatly benefit for those suspected carrier landings gone wrong with our new F-18 lookalike. Anyways. It is something that adds major immersion. Right now, I think you can hit eject when upside down and you will still get flung directly upwards, which is totally unrealistic. I have always felt that the current "ejection" in arma 3 is a temporary placeholder. In my honest opinion the ejection system should cover all fixed wing military jets, as these are more than likely to come equipped with "crew escape" systems. I'd love to see them follow a few basic rules in A3: Seats are only armed when aircraft is not stationary (much like todays "get out" versus "eject" in action menu). Ejection sequence: Canopy removed first, then catapult out, then rocket motor ignition to propel pilot in an upward direction, then automatic chute deploy and seat separation. Seat actually propels in correct angle according to plane orientation (so ejecting upside-down may be very lethal at low altitudes ;) ). Zero-zero seat type (ejection seat should have enough power to lift pilot from a stationary ground position to a safe altitude to deploy chute safely). Optional: Pilot equipment restrictions (can not bring weapons or backpack onboard a jet). However, all jets feature "survival kits" that "give" ejected pilots a PDW or Pistol with a few mags and a FAK/Smoke and radio etc. If pilot ejects above sea/water, a dinghy will spawn near the pilot upon splashdown (in real life, survival kits may contain automatically inflating personal rafts to save pilots when landing in ocean). (Figure above you can see that the pilot actually sits on the survival kit. It detaches when the pilot is released from the seat and hangs from his back during descent) (Above figure shows a personal life raft, typically used by pilots for over-ocean operations) Survival kits are quite common in case pilots eject behind enemy lines. They hold some rations, a weapon, ammo, water, flares, smoke grenade etc. It would absolutely add greatly to immersion. Just imagine bailing out over Tanoan jungle, open your survival kit and find some basic equipment. Then start evading enemies and trying to make your way back to friendly forces! :) Would make for cool dynamic search and rescue scenarios. Lastly just another schematic to illustrate how complex ejection seats are in real life :) IIRC mode 1 is sub-sonic ejection and mode 2 is supersonic ejection with drogue chute to slow down pilot/seat. Either way it's a heck of a step up in immersion to just include a rocket seat to propel the pilot out of the aircraft instead of just literally "god snapping you up and flinging you towards the sky".
-
I believe it is a normal feature for most military jets to have a so-called "boresight cross". It is a small crosshair that shows the pilot where the gun, and usually the nose, sensors and etc are pointing when in their center position. The F-16, for instance, has it in the very top of the HUD :) It is referred to as the "gun cross" in the picture below :)
-
I don't know if anything has been said about this, but I would really like to know if the devs are planning to add vanilla working ejection seats. Right now it is too arcade with being "flung" vertically in a "I believe I can fly" fashion. I would love the brutal immersive experience of being ejected. A loud bang, woosh and "oh phew that was close" as you hang silently from the chute, watching your jet fireball into the ground. ACE 2.0 for ARMA II had a fantastic version. RHS also does great ejection seats for their jets. Even their Mi-28 has crew escape systems! Functioning vanilla ejection seats would be the icing on the cake for me :D
-
I second this. It would be very nice to have a "TOF" display before launch, and then have it count down after launch as an Time to Impact. This becomes more important for Guided bombs, where ground troops could be alerted that it's 20 seconds to impact etc. If you fire many bombs/missiles at once, it could display the time to impact for the last weapon fired.
-
This is fantastic news! I think you should consider and decide upon a few things though: HMD functionality (Helmet Mounted Display). Some aircraft use a combined solution, where the HMD and HUD interact seamlessly, while other aircraft only have HUD or HMD. Example: The A-10C traditionally had only a HUD to function as a visual overlay. The pilot has no HMD and has to get all info through the HUD essentially. The F-16 MLU has both a HUD and HMD. They are synced so that when the pilot is looking at the HUD or inside the cockpit, the HMD automatically switches off. This way, you won't get double "overlapping" of HUD and HMD, and the pilot will not be distracted when trying to find knobs, buttons and switches. Once he is looking outside the HUD and Cockpit, the HMD switches on again and basically shows compass-heading, airspeed, altitude etc. The F-35, to my knowledge, does not have a HUD at all, and only uses HMD. I would imagine that the HMD also switches off when the pilot is looking inside the cockpit, so he is not distracted by "floating text and symbology" when trying to read the monitors and other devices inside the cockpit. The clue is, how realistic do you want it and what is possible to accomplish in ARMA? All military fixed-wing aircraft in ARMA now have HUD's (correct me if I'm wrong), which means that they can manage without HMD. HMD would, however, be an advantage, but in real life it requires a helmet that incorporates such a display feature. My suggestion would be to enable HMD functionality based upon two criteria: 1. Does the aircraft support HMD technology? 2. Does the pilot have HMD compatible helmet? It would actually give players a reason to leave the ghilliesuit behind and wear flight gear when piloting. I have seen way too many "pilots" in ghilliesuits :p Coding the "F-16" variant would probably be a nightmare, because you would really have to model each cockpit with a canopy and HUD occlusion-type geometry and tell the game to turn off HMD when player is looking inside this area. Using the two criteria above, HMD functionality could be "disabled" by mission makers by using pilots that are NOT equipped with HMD-compatible helmets, since HMD can give advantages. Just thinking out loud here :)
-
I hope you misspelled that. What exactly do you mean? HE shells contain an explosive core, which means they are softer than APCR or Tungsten shells. That makes HE useless against anything with a few cm's of armor thickness. At best the explosion may shock the crew or damage exterior parts. HEAT is designed to penetrate ridiculous amounts of armor by focusing blastwaves at a small point and "tearing" through armor like it was butter. However, if you are talking about the HEAT shell itself penetrating armor as if it were a "dud" shell, then yes, it should have equally bad or worse pen than HE shells. The only thing that really stops HEAT shells is spaced armor or HEAT "nets"/"Fences", because these cause the shell to detonate prematurely so that the "standoff" distance is too great. This causes the focused blast to occur too soon, and ruins the effect of such ammunition.
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
Strike_NOR replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Speaking from actual experience. Pilot's don't clean shit, in fact, they are the reason the jets are dirty all the time ;) they only like to point it out to you :) On a more serious note - We keep the glass-covers clean at all times to improve TGP performance. This also means cleaning the cockpit MFD's, which also tend to get dirty after a while. For ARMA I don't see the purpose of having simulated grime and dirt on the TGP display.- 953 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
Strike_NOR replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Now I am just going to make a general assumption here, but the sensor overhaul is exactly that, an overhaul. It's a major rework of a core game mechanic that tampers with all available vehicles and sensors. Suddenly every vehicle and weapon is getting a bunch of new parameters and variables that all need balance and tuning. Additionally, remember what this does to the modding community. All addons and mods, old, ongoing and new, are going to be hit by the changes to sensors. This essentially requires addon-makers to revisit and reconfigure their addons in order to work properly with the new sensors. If this happens once a year or so, it is only a little tedious. BIS have to make a decision at some point that they want to add "A and B, but not C D and E", because while adding C, D and E may give tons of more complexity and realism, it may very well cost too much time and effort and discourage addon makers from updating their mods. Since ARMA 3 has a large modding community that helps keep the franchise afloat, it would be risky to "annoy" the addon makers with new features that constantly "break" (outdate) their addons. What I strongly suggest is that we let BIS work on the sensor suite, and help them test the heck out of it. Because only then can we truly help the devs discover stuff such as bugs, imbalance, practical aspects, user-interface improvement potential or even game-breaking elements. I personally thought magic radar was going to die together with ARMA 3, but it is a welcome surprise to me that they are redoing such a major component of the game, this late into post-release development.- 953 replies
-
- 5
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
If this is true, then the new FCS mechanic is like an aimbot. It will just fling shells in the correct place every time. The only thing that can possibly cause a miss is if the target changes course before the shell has landed, which is impossible to predict. I also think there should be at least 0.5 second to 1 second delay between lase and ready to fire. For gameplay reasons
-
Guys. It's an interesting debate, but this thread is for Fire Control System discussion, not general armored warfare tactics between tanks and infantry. I'm sure we get a lot of cool new features with tanks DLC. One of which, I hope, is a different way of simulating tank damage and, armor types and armor penetrating effects.
-
I am no tank expert, my knowledge lies more towards aircraft, but I do believe many modern tanks are equipped with laser detectors. In some vehicles they just give a warning, others will give the crew a general direction to where they are being lased from. The most advanced systems can automatically override the crew and point the turret towards the laser source for quick counter-attacks. I think the russian T-80's/90's can be outfitted with such a system. With the new sensor suite, maybe arma's tanks (and IFV's) should equip laser detectors. As a measure of balance and stealth, clever players may manually range their elevation, or lase something close-by the target to acquire the range without alerting the target's crew. This probably works best for stationary targets :) I also agree with what several other users have posted, that a 0.5 s to 1s delay between lasing and having a ready solution would simulate the tank FCS having to "lay the gun" with the computed lead. By the way, has anyone actually checked if the FCS physically moves the tank turret sideways when calculating lead? Or is the shell just fired in an angle out of the barrel? In other words: Does the lead compensation happen at the barrel, or by rotating the turret? Because if BIS have done it realistically by making the turret traverse compensate for lead, then the turret traverse speed of the tank is what essentially limits the time from lase-to-fire :)
-
Just played around with it myself, and I agree with Supercereal. In all of my shots ,where my crosshair was center of mass, the actual impact was in the lower track region. Spot on horizontal aim, but about 1-2 meters vertically below my aim. Distance was about 1000m, target traveling directly perpendicular to my tank (maximum horizontal speed, zero closure). Other than that, I am LOVING the improved FCS. Works like a charm. Actually makes aiming tank-shots more fun, while it feels a lot more authentic!
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
Strike_NOR replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Of course, besides countermeasures, evasive actions and good reflexes :) The best way to avoid getting shot down is to prepare well for the attack. One of the things I hope BIS will include as a standard is to cycle countermeasure mode to "continuous" mode. This will make the aircraft drop 1 flare every 2-3 seconds until you deactivate countermeasures again. This is a proactive way of protecting yourself from MANPADS because IR-launchers will have a harder time locking the aircraft (instead of the flares) and any in-flight missiles may be spoofed by the flares that dispense at short intervals. You would typically activate this mode when you are closing in on the target area, or dipping below MANPADS attack ceiling. This would actually balance the use of hand-held IR-seekers. It would also act as a limited resource for pilots. If you overfly target area 4-5 times, then maybe you are out of flares. I strongly dislike todays "burst" mode where one tap fires a huge volley of flares, coupled with the magic red "M" on the sensor HUD that allows you to easily time when to fire flares. Such bursts are normally used if you actually KNOW you are being fired upon by something harder to spoof. It justifies spending nearly 20% of your flares in order to avoid getting shot down by a much deadlier Air-to-Air missile. Modern IR-seekers have shifted from "photo-sensitive" sensors (that see the world as very pixelated IR patterns), to IR-cameras (that see high-resolution images in IR-spectrum). The more modern missiles with IR-Cameras can actually be smart enough to see geometric shapes (such as an aircraft) and distinguish that from a flare (glowing sphere). It will prioritize following the aircraft-shaped target, whereas the old missiles would follow whatever was hottest (typical MANPADS sensor). If any work is being done on countermeasures I would like to see a few things: Countermeasure modes (manual, burst, continuous and automatic) Manual fires 1, burst fires a salvo, continuous fires 1 every x seconds and automatic is coupled with Missile Warning System (to fire if launch is detected by onboard system). Countermeasures delay sensor lock. (If a vehicle fires countermeasures, it should increase the time to lock by a small debuff - i.e if 1 flare is fired, it slows down the locking process for 1-2 seconds so you have to track target a little longer). Working chaff. (If a radar is locking a target that is close to the sensors maximum range, dropping chaff may make the sensor lose lock. Also chaff should have a chance to counter Radar-seeking missiles). Jammer (Optional loadout that can be toggled on/off. When on, it will give away your position, but it will seriously increase locking time, and decrease locking range of enemy radar sensors). It would make sense to at least do something about the flares in my opinion.- 953 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
As much as we would love to see this, I am pretty certain this would require Take On Helicopters RotorLib style improvements to the fixed wing flight model, which I think the devs already have confirmed they will NOT have the time to do. So... let's hope for modders to create those kind of scripts with the new possibilities of more hitpoints to choose from :)
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
Strike_NOR replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
From my field of experience, I support what you say, but tracking would require a quite cumbersome and advanced equipment. It is more common to arrange UV or IR sensors on the vehicle in a way that it covers a 360 degree arc. If a missile is fired within the sensors collective field of view, the rocket motor gives off a lot of light in the IR and UV spectrum that will be detected. The system can work out which sensors can see the missile at the same time, and then give a "O'clock" bearing. Since rocket motors only burn for a few seconds, it would be almost impossible to track the missile in flight, so it is only used to warn about missiles being fired. The main motivation for designing such a system is to counter MANPADS (MAN-Portable Air Defense Systems), since they are the hardest to detect. Some SAM systems that fire IR-seeking missiles utilize a search and tracking radar to tell the operator the range, heading and altitude of the target. This can be helpful to the operator to determine if the missile will have enough energy to reach the target (i.e firing solution). I noticed in the current build that when using the new Titan-AA, the target does not detect you until after you have fired. But using a mod launcher (RHS Strela launcher) that uses stable-branch code, as soon as I start locking an enemy helicopter, it immediately detects me and starts sending bullets my way. I assume that's because it's stull using the old sensor code, but the new radar warning is picking it up instantly. :) However, having the new IR-missiles undetectable may seem "OP". Since a soldier can nearly hide in plain sight due to his small size and tiny silhouette, it is virtually only possible to detect incoming missiles by witnessing the smoke trail. Smoke trails in ARMA 3 are not exactly very visible for anti-air missiles. It is actually much easier at night since missiles give off light. My suggestion to balance missile detection vs IR-seeker surprise death would be that the plane being fired upon has a missile warning system that only gives the pilot a "Missile Launch! (#) O'clock" style warning. Or that the sensor HUD flashes red in the general direction where a missile has been fired. It would be far too easy and unrealistic if the pilot could see a red "M" moving towards him on the sensor HUD. But, that's just my opinion :)- 953 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
You can not possibly think that you alone could have any impact on BIS hiring matters? I mean, sure. Buy the majority of stocks in BIS and sack the guy if you want. But demanding it on a forum is a far stretch. Many modders realize that they can use their skills, developed through arma modding, to create their own games to profit from them. It's a huge risk and calls for a lot of personal investment. However though, many so-called "arma 3 destroying competitors" still can't offer the same fidelity and experience as Arma 3 can. Wouldn't you say? Arma holds its ground because there isn't anything like it yet, and probably won't be for a while. Whoa whoa... Slow down. So you mean the FREE engine upgrades that came with the marksmen, tanoa, helicopter expansions are wasted? The extra addons are all high quality and add to the game, but the core mechanics such as weapon resting, air-lifting, graphics update, audio update, 3DEN editor are all HUGE free expansions that enhance the ARMA experience. Are you saying that BIS are not focusing on engine issues? From my point of view they are still working on fixing and improving. With each patch, there's always a little new content, and a little redone code for better performance and or core mechanics. This is a matter of personal opinion. I personally look differently at it. BIS somehow have the balls to keep releasing free content, and allowing compatible play with owners of new DLC and non-DLC owners, unlike many other gaming companies. I think all of the ArmA community know that Arma 3 has an expected life time of a few more years, but from all the experience BIS have using the Real Virtuality engine, they will create something new. I believe somewhere in the future there will be a new ARMA engine that is much better in that one field we all know arma has challenges, which is performance. Once BIS makes the perfect compromise between simulation and smooth performance, we will have our "ARMA 4". The question remains though: if good performance sacrifices the hard-core realism, such as bullet penetration and large scale AI combat, will more people play it? Or will the target group of players just shift from "hardcore pre arma 4" to "arcade-ish arma 4+"? Either way, the future is bright. I personally can't wait for Jets DLC :) I also have an eye out for Tanks, which I find rather bland and uninteresting in current arma (RHS mods armor is really good though). To some people, arma 3 bugs is just another word for "splendid franchise charm". I hope you find some comfort in these words, rather than pure criticism.
-
Dynamic Vehicle Loadouts feedback
Strike_NOR replied to granQ's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Hey. I'm keeping tabs on the forums while away from my ARMA 3 PC for a few weeks. I sometimes forget how fluid dev-branch can be (this isn't the first time I've blurted out things). Apologies. Thanks for the lesson. -
Dynamic Vehicle Loadouts feedback
Strike_NOR replied to granQ's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Dynamic loadouts are such a great idea. No more A-10 (GBU), A-10 (CAS), A-10 (Multi-Role), A-10 (LAU) etc... just One plane, multiple loadouts. Absolutely whole-heartedly support this idea for jets, helicopters and even tanks. Fully supported in 3DEN for easy mission config. Fully supported in-game by use of ammotruck and editor placeable module (sync to ammo truck/crate etc) Fully supported in Virtual Arsenal. That would be awesome. A whole other level of awesome would be if you could build the dynamic loadout system as a hierarchy that respects following rules and order: - Vehicle max capacity (weight or ammo count - a HUGE plus would be adjustable fuel, but I see that may be difficult. Would be nice to sacrifice fuel for extra payload) - Hardpoints (how many weapon slots does the vehicle have, and which type is allowed per slot) - Launcher/Pylon/Pod style weapon adapters. Depending on vehicle, certain weapon mounts only support certain mount types. Launchers for missiles, Pylons for bombs or dropped missiles, and finally pod adapters for TGP or gunpods/jammer etc) - Weapon (The final level in the hierarchy, where the actual weapon capabilities are determined by addon makers) This essentially means that an addon maker now sets the maximum capacity of the vehicle (be it weight for an aircraft or shell/magazine capacity for a tank) and then how many hardpoints it has and what type can be used. For an F-16 with 9 (+2) hardpoints it would look something like this: L = launcher P = pylon F = fuel PD = pod G = gun Hardpoint# 1 2 3 4 5a 5 5b 6 7 8 9 M-61 Vulcan 20mm L L L/P L/P/F PD PD/F* PD L/P/F L/P L L G Finally the addon maker sets up available options like so: L: AIM-9, AIM-120, AIM-7, AIM-2000 P: GBU-12, GBU-12 triple ejector rack, AGM-65, LAU-60, Mk-82, Mk-84 etc.. F: 370Gal Tank, *300 Gal tank PD: ALQ-131 Jammer, Lantirn TGP, Pantera TGP, FLIR pod G: 512x 20mm HE, HE-T, MP-T, AP, etc... That would be sweet. Would allow addon makers to utilize already made weapons and pylons for other aircraft too, also add mod support. If this is what you are going for then please accept my virtual high five!