chortles
-
Content Count
6600 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Everything posted by chortles
-
Some of that is by overt dev-stated intention and thus probably not subject to change -- see the back and forth over what became of CCIP* -- but others not so much such as my bit about sensors; not that I'm sure how adding/changing sensors by script instead of config mod should work when there's so many parameters/possible values as seen in the Config Viewer, versus 'just' adding/removing weapons and magazines... though in your case, that laser designator/marker removal goes pretty far because the infrared-only air-to-ground missiles aren't that great. EDIT: I didn't think of this scripting-only (and thus preserving KOTH's no-mods-required benefit) possibility earlier but here's one possibility for TvT scenarios using the AA vehicles, which you can throw into init fields or scripts: vehicle player removeWeaponTurret ["missiles_titan",[0]]; vehicle player removeMagazinesTurret ["4Rnd_Titan_long_missiles",[0]]; vehicle player addMagazineTurret ["magazine_Missile_rim162_x8",[0], 4]; vehicle player addWeaponTurret ["weapon_rim162Launcher",[0]]; * If you weren't here for that a TL;DR might be "first-person/HUD-only because that's a real-world thing and not a game mechanic, but in return it definitely can't be turned off".
-
@jone_koneI'd remark rather that there's limits on what a mission/scenario maker can modify in order to achieve that playable balance without having to write and require a config mod for the scenario. For example there's no scripting commands or GUI with which to add to/define/modify the sensors on a vehicle, only disable/enable those already on the vehicle's config and/or their data link receive/send capability.
-
Sometimes 'a proper fix' and 'backwards compatibility' are mutually exclusive, no?
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
chortles replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
@SuicideKing@the_one_and_only_Venator@jone_koneThere's an explanation in the configs: the vanilla air-to-ground missiles' IR sensors mainly (only?) differ from the template in maxRange, angleRangeHorizontal, angleRangeVertical, and maxTrackableSpeed values; therefore the actual sensor range against a target with irTargetSize=1 against a ground background* (thanks to da12thMonkey for this illustration of how the subclasses seem to work, posted on the official Arma 3 Discord) would be the smallest of the groundTarget subclass' maxRange value, the object view distance, or the view distance. Quoting the BIKI's example/explanation when minRange=500, maxRange=5000, objectDistanceLimitCoef=1, and viewDistanceLimitCoef=1: In contrast to the above** the laser, NV/strobe, datalink, active radar, and passive radar (warning receiver/anti-radiation) sensor templates all have objectDistanceLimitCoef=-1, and viewDistanceLimitCoef=-1 for both airTarget and groundTarget subclasses so (assuming radarTargetSize=1 for the radar-guided missiles' targets) the maxRange values are those sensors' ranges, period. This might explain why complaints about jets in KOTH these days seem to be about GBUs (read: laser guidance) instead of AGMs... Speaking of laser guidance, if you're playing a scenario with a service menu for vanilla aircraft please note that every weapon station ('pylon') on every non-Jets vanilla attack aircraft, UAVs included, supports at least one laser-guided air-to-ground weapon. Under the current 'rules' described above there's a case to be made for foregoing 'punch' for range. * The IR sensor template and all IR sensors I've checked have had airTarget subclasses with viewDistanceLimitCoef=1 but also objectDistanceLimitCoef=-1, thereby object view distance not limiting the range for detecting targets against a sky background, which may be why you're not noticing this issue with IR-guided air-to-air missiles. ** The NV/strobe template inherits from the laser template all except for componentType and color, but on the GBU-12/KAB-250/LOM-250G the NV sensor is limited by object/terrain views distances. -
Keep in mind that this 'niche' was already held by the pre-Jets Orca when there were fixed loadouts -- there was the Scalpel for the Kajman and Ababil-3 (aka MQ-4A Greyhawk in BLUFOR), the Sharur for the Neophron/'Kh-25' for the Shikra, and the Jian for the Fenghuang -- so unless you've a particular desire that these other CSAT airframes should also have DAGR support... (Trivia: at last check the 'Kh-25' magazines call the Sharur's ammo class and thus the two missiles are statistically identical.)
-
That would be because the DAGR pod has both "B_MISSILE_PYLON" and "DAGR" in its hardpoints array, making it compatible with any pylon that has either of those two in its own hardpoints array and a maxWeight value ≥ 140 (the pod's mass value); presumably the omission of "DAGR" from other CSAT aircraft pylons was a conscious design decision to give the Orca a niche and to preserve missions designed around it having those guided rockets.
-
It may or may not be up to date but the Arma 3 Sensors article has a guided weapons table; at last check the Macer II was statistically identical to the original Macer due to their magazines calling the same ammo class.
-
WW2 warships release on arma3 engine
chortles replied to cervantes's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
I take it that this isn't your release? -
RKSL 3 - A new start... Discussion
chortles replied to rksl-rock's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
@rksl-rock From what I see Bravo Zero One (Jets DLC) and Bohemia's (base game) method was plane+pylon > carrier+weapon for all vanilla jets, so I'm interested in seeing the result of da12theMonkey's technique on your Typhoons! On the other hand, the reason for B01/Bohemia's jets leaving the pylons visible even when empty may be because the visual absence or presence of the pylons (much less stores installed underneath) does nothing to change the aircraft's radar cross section, which is solely determined by the vehicle's radarTargetSize value. -
RKSL 3 - A new start... Discussion
chortles replied to rksl-rock's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
@rksl-rock If by "fit pylons" you meant the pylons themselves being present/installed... you could place a Black Wasp II and/or a Shikra alongside their respective "(Stealth)" variant in the Editor and open up their loadout menu in their Attributes window to see the difference in their loadout possibilities, then use the Config Viewer to glimpse how this was done and adapt their all-internal-bays examples to create your own Typhoons with each varying in which pylons are available? -
RKSL 3 - A new start... Discussion
chortles replied to rksl-rock's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
Hmm, admittedly I'm wondering just why you'd want to replicate that in the new system? After all, if you're looking at an in-mission loadout menu the new scripting commands introduced in 1.70 can be the underpinning of one. -
Bratwurst Mark 1 AA (ELK_AA)
chortles replied to suddenlymoose's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
@suddenlymoose Hmm, this is even when the missile has a datalink sensor and it's receiving its target track from a transmitting vehicle with line of sight to the target? -
RKSL 3 - A new start... Discussion
chortles replied to rksl-rock's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: DISCUSSION
I just wanted to remark on this last part of your blurb on the Typhoon V3.011: as far as I could tell the BIKI seemed pretty useful as far as the pylons/weapons configuration; have you already been consulting it in the past three weeks? The system works seemingly 1:1 for fixed-wing as for rotary-wing. -
Would be interested in seeing a mechanic where a Take On Helicopters-style pre-flight inspection can prevent in-flight failures by identifying parts issues while on the ground.
-
From today's dev branch changelog: "Added: Waypoint indicator to the HUD of the A-164".
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
chortles replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Agreed but there's no faster way to test the gameplay concept with no 'modding proficiency' required, although scripting would be needed for it to be usable for non-BLUFOR (since the default crew/cargo is B_UAV_AI) or for players to get user actions for interacting with it, i.e. toggling data link.- 957 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
chortles replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
@ski2060 @Imperator[TFD] One possibility might be to create two "emitter" static vehicles, one for each radome size, to be placed atop the vanilla terrains' pre-placed radomes, with radar/data link and a location-specific (per radome size) user action for toggling the radar on/off, this user action being placed somewhere that the player could get to if the emitters were properly placed; even if one can't "get in" these emitters could still support data link transmitting so that their detected/tracked contacts can instead be seen in data link receiving vehicles, and should be possible to configure/script them so that they are destroyed or at least brought offline (i.e. no longer transmitting to same-side receiving vehicles) if the radomes are as well. If you'd like to test this method as BLUFOR controlling the emitter and without the user action, try placing a Praetorian 1C atop a radome with no ammo (possibly no weapon either), radar forced on, and Data Link Send remaining enabled, with your BLUFOR player in a vehicle with a SENS panel mode (among BLUFOR this means the Cheetah and aircraft besides the xH-9 duo) and Data Link Receive enabled. -
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
chortles replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
@soulis6@martin_lee Data Link capability can be disabled/enabled at mission start in the emitter and receiving vehicles' Eden Attributes window via the Data Link Receive and Send checkboxes under Object - Electronics & Sensors. As far as "blinding the enemy", there are scripting commands for disabling/enabling a vehicle's data link reception and transmission (in this latter case detected contacts and/or own position), and dev branch has enableVehicleSensor for disabling (by setting to false) individual sensors of a given vehicle. As another example of 'incentive to destroy a radar transmitter', on dev branch the Mk21 Centurion's radar coverage was narrowed from a cone to a long-range beam while the Mk49 has lost its radar altogether, so both SAM launchers now rely on their data link sensor and Data Link Receive to feed them targets detected, tracked, and transmitted by a Data Link Send-enabled vehicle on the same side, such as the Praetorian 1C or a Cheetah.- 957 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- electronic warfare
- radar
- (and 8 more)
-
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
chortles replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
@venthorror If your Buzzard is flying high enough above an airborne target that drawing a straight line from your Buzzard to the target would result in the the target having the surface terrain behind it (that is, not silhouetted against open sky) then 4 km is the applicable range as described here; effective range can also be affected by the target's radarTargetSize. -
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
chortles replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Are you defining "painted" as 'you're appearing on an opposing force's radar' (within range and field of regard of an opposing radar sensor) or 'they selected you as their current target'? Because I believe that the latter is what the "marked by" symbology is for, and as for the former the in-game RWR acts as an 'opposing force vehicle has its radar on' indicator, admittedly irrespective of whether or not it's painting your vehicle... -
Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)
chortles replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
@jerminhu There's already a lock warning, though I don't remember ever seeing a "you're marked by this vehicle" symbol/warning. -
@KiTooN If you don't mind eight missiles instead of ten this Redditor attachTo'd the HEMTT and the carrier static defenses! Even if you leave them static though, as per Imperator-TFD in May 29's dev branch update the Mk21 Centurion had its radar coverage extended (11-14 km depending on sky or ground background) but narrowed (only 15° wide) so that it's reliant on targets received/transmitted from the Praetorian 1C's 360° air search radar which goes out to 7-10 km; this mechanic also works with the Cheetah/Tigris whose radar goes out to 6-9 km (can identify a target's type at 5 km). In return, the Centurion's 'RIM-162' missiles have a detect/track/lock range of 12 km and the locking 'cone' is almost a full hemisphere at 170°... so please believe me when I say that on dev branch a Centurion paired with a Praetorian (neither of which has an engine to cause a heat signature, thereby precluding IR missile guidance) is a deadly combination for CAS.
-
Bratwurst Mark 1 AA (ELK_AA)
chortles replied to suddenlymoose's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
On dev branch "It is now possible to mark Data Link targets using remote sensors", this capability having been applied to the Cheetah/Tigris and carrier static defenses in dev branch build v1.71.141872, although their missiles still use IR and active radar sensors; in this video my custom config (missile with the new sensor) is demonstrated. -
As of dev build v1.71.141872 (the 29 May 2017 dev branch update) the Cheetah/Tigris can perform this role with the Mk21 Centurion as the launcher, thanks to the addition of a datalink sensor (requires that Data Link Receive is enabled in the vehicle's Eden Attributes window under "Object - Electronics & Sensors") to them and to the Mk49 Spartan and Praetorian 1C; although the changelog specifies the Praetorian, the Cheetah/Tigris also has "a 360° scan coverage" and a mission-maker can attachTo the Centurion to a ground vehicle. The current main downside to this arrangement seems to be that radar-guided missiles require that the launching vehicle's radar be toggled on to begin the lock and up through launch, thereby exposing the launching vehicle to radar warning receivers and ARMs; I have not yet tested whether aware/combat behavior can be used to force the Centurion's 'autonomous vehicle AI' to wait until a datalink contact (targeting data) is received before toggling on its radar.
-
Answer: Something which Bohemia very specifically never promised (as in 'no, a future aspiration on a BIKI article doesn't count'). Indeed, the sudden enthusiasm-tempered-by-ambivalence for the approach in roy86's video has me thinking that pettka and company were on to something...