dragon01
-
Content Count
2030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
-
Medals
-
Everything posted by dragon01
-
RHS Escalation (AFRF and USAF)
dragon01 replied to soul_assassin's topic in ARMA 3 - ADDONS & MODS: COMPLETE
He probably wanted to ask which GL will be used on GL variants of SCAR. -
This is because it's not an artillery weapon. Early development version had that functionality, but they had to take it out to allow the cruise mode to work properly. Either script it or use the gun as naval arty support.
-
Excellent, I wanted to know this, too. :) This will do. In fact, I suppose a repeatable trigger for firing the missiles will be easier to use than going through the arty system each time (since you would never want salvo fire in this case).
-
You are probably remembering right. Block IV TLAM will have active radar homing, allowing it to track moving targets in terminal phase. It appears to be scheduled to enter service in 2021, but since my source is from 2016, the current administration might have changed something. That said, this is mostly spoken of in terms of maritime attack capability. Since they retired the TSM some time ago, USN is kinda short on ship-to-ship options. This radar might be good enough to work on vehicles, but that's not its primary purpose. Generally, cruise missiles do have terminal radar tracking of some sort, however this is because most of them are intended to use against ships. Radar guidance against vehicles is very problematic (and thus a recent development) due to ground clutter and their lower radar returns. Not saying you can't have a land attack cruise missile with terminal GTT guidance, but it is rather complicated. Not only that, given the ranges involved, designating the target is difficult, since you can't track it from launch platform (ships are visible at extremely long ranges, tanks are not), and unlike ballistic missiles, you can't count on it being "somewhere in front of the missile", as CMs tend to be subsonic and thus take much longer to reach the target than BMs. It probably can be done with modern/future tech, but it's complex and the resulting system would very likely require additional input from the launch platform after reaching the target area (which, admittedly, is supposed to be doable with TLAM Block IV).
-
It is impossible to destroy projectiles with another weapon in ArmA. End of the story. Same reason why CIWS or RAM don't intercept most things that they logically should. Also the reason why APS on tanks is not a thing.
-
Mk 45 Hammer as NGS needs the artillery computer
dragon01 replied to goose4291's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Direct LOS fire support is useless. This gun is too big to be an optimal choice against speedboats, and there's no naval combat on larger scale. IRL, you don't pick off tanks with a ship's gun (especially since they tend to fire HE ammo and aren't very accurate, since a floating ship is not a stable platform). Naval fire support is not about avoiding collateral damage, unless we're talking VLS, since Tomahawks are incredibly precise. You can use static MGs on the flight deck to fend off boarders (since the destroyer only has ladders there, anyway). This is not the kind of ship that's supposed to get anywhere close to land, and thus the previous version of the gun was effectively worthless, because there was no situation where it could be used. SPG in place of the gun is as stupid as putting a SAM trailer on the heli deck. There are far more possible missions where you could see it firing than those where you'd actually use it in direct mode. In particular, the current setup allows you to use the gun with AI to set up bombardment, which is another thing you can't do with a direct fire gun. -
Naval autocannons tend to look like this: It looks more like an oversized MG than anything like Praetorian. Also, against speedboats and the like (the only naval combat assets present in ArmA), .50cal MGs can do just fine. Aside from a shortage of places to put them (the railings are too high and barrels clip into them), you could use the tall .50cal tripod for that. If boarding is a concern you can put them on the flight deck (that's where all the ladders are), but this might cause trouble for helo pilots operating from it.
-
The exact point I'm making is that it'd be good to be able to place the new SAMs on ships, not just on land (and a SAM trailer on the helideck is a rather silly idea). Configs could probably be derived from those, as well.
-
That's why I pinged @oukej. I'm well aware that ArmA is full of limitations like that, and it'd be unfortunate if artillery-based systems couldn't be use terrain following missiles, but perhaps there is a way to do this.
-
Except the Centurion is a medium SAM, comparable to, for example, the Sea Sparrow. I'm talking something like the SM-2 Standard, which would have, at least, similar capabilities to the new ground-based SAMs. In fact, modern US VLS launchers have a much wider selection of SAMs than anti-ship or land attack missiles (which are limited to TSMs or TLAMs, respectively).
-
There's currently limited utility for a direct fire cannon. Naval combat does not exist in ArmA, which is where you'd encounter this sort of thing IRL. You would generally use smaller guns to shoot at speedboats, Liberty doesn't really have too many places for that, but realistically it'd have .50cal MGs and even 20mm autocannons mounted on the upper and front deck railings (tried emulating that with tripod-mounted MGs, but they had barrel collision problems). The only other use is shelling harbors up close, which AI is incapable of using direct fire for anyway, and as far as players go it can be managed quite well with the current setup. The VLS should be capable of rapid fire, although the current setting might be caused by AI firing multiple missiles per target otherwise. This is already a problem with AA launchers, they have a tendency to overkill things.
-
Yeah, it's pretty amazing. Visuals are spot-on, but using it in SP is kind of a chore, not to mention guidance is weird. The warhead is kind of underpowered as well (oddly enough, the explosion is too large, if anything). As I mentioned of the previous page, the real Tomahawk does not track targets in any way. @oukej, would that be possible to make artillery missiles that follow terrain? Ideally, the Venator would be that, with (optional, for moving targets/extra precision) terminal laser guidance.
-
I think that multiple VLS variants with different loadouts would be preferable. For example, singleplayer use might benefit more from an artillery-based launcher (thus allowing operation without UAV access), while some missions would benefit from having heavy SAM missiles in there. Also, do note that, with the exception of the SSM variant (which is radar guided), the real Tomahawk doesn't have any sort of GTT guidance, it's pure GOLIS. It might be possible to update the target mid-course on some variants, but I'm not sure about it.
-
CUP config actually works pretty poorly with AI. It's a hack that prevents the gun from working with vanilla artillery modules. Given the limited utility of the direct fire mode for naval arty, I'd say artillery mode will be best.
-
So they should stick to playing. Mission making is a significantly more advanced activity than just playing the game. Sure, some old missions got broken, but there are others that work fine.
-
A new waypoint type would be useful, but might be though to code. I'd say we should focus on how to improve what we have now instead of adding new functionality.
-
Well, now it's not so simple. That said, the steps involved should be pretty obvious (though I suppose BI could explain it in a tutorial, I suggested adding a few more built-in ones). In effect, you need to actually tell the AI to form a convoy and make sure it's in correct order. Don't expect a "thrown together" mission to be of high quality, to get good results you need to put in actual effort. In particular, anything involving the AI requires testing, and it always did. If it wasn't finicky before they wouldn't have had overhauled it in first place. Also, in ArmA2 convoys worked poorly at best. Maybe they did work in a more straightforward manner, but I occasionally had problems with them (and with single vehicles, as well) even in vanilla missions. They got stuck, lost wheels on obstacles and had all manners of problems as well.
-
No, it isn't. That's the whole point. Wheeled or tracked, speed, separation, distance, those things matter. Yes, it used to be easier to make it work, but the way I see it, the way it is now offers more control. It's logical that you have, at the very least, to set proper formation for the convoy to maintain. Do not blame the devs when it's the mission makers who don't bother setting up their missions in a proper, fail-safe way.
-
CAP Target Lead Indicator (TLI)
dragon01 replied to Arkin100's topic in ARMA 3 - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
You need to put the circle on the target. This is known as the LCOS piper. Basically, IRL a TLI that you might be used to from arcade games doesn't really exist (at least on systems that I know). Instead, you have a piper which shows where your bullets will be considering distance to target and relative velocities. Put this over the part of the target that you want to hit (usually center of mass, but in some cases you need to actually aim at the engines), and fire. -
Mk 45 Hammer as NGS needs the artillery computer
dragon01 replied to goose4291's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Or that guy with dual M249s on full auto ("this look unsafe" indeed). Sure, it can be done and, marines being marines, it has been done. :) Doesn't mean it's of any use for anything other than looking macho. -
Yeah, they should indeed all go back to A2 - all this fiddling with AI started, afterall, because of community feedback. It's funny to see more of less the same people get angry about the rework they themselves demanded. It never worked particularly well (although there was a brief time when it worked somewhat better than now). In fact, it's been dodgy even in ArmA1. That said, they might have been playing with some sort of AI mod that didn't transition to A3 (A2 had a bunch of those). Last time AI driving was truly reliable was in OFP, and that was: a) a much simpler game, b) the game for which the AI was originally programmed for.
-
Could we get an official EDEN tutorial for using certain functions Jets DLC ships in a mission? In particular, carrier catapult launches for AI (on a trigger), AI boat launch/recovery, basically anything that involves new functions. It would really help the usage of those assets in SP missions.
-
Mk 45 Hammer as NGS needs the artillery computer
dragon01 replied to goose4291's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
This wouldn't work, the gun needs actual direct fire (mortar fire is always indirect). Arty firing solutions you see in ArmA are always for indirect fire. -
Mk 45 Hammer as NGS needs the artillery computer
dragon01 replied to goose4291's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Artillery computer (and, presumably, the current handling) was introduced in A2:OA. Right now, the AI won't use artillery-enabled howitzers for direct fire, and those setup for dual mode will fire into the ground (cf. CUP frigate) if used with the artillery modules. At least, last time I checked. The old scripting solution might still work, but the point is for it to be usable with standard arty support modules. -
Mk 45 Hammer as NGS needs the artillery computer
dragon01 replied to goose4291's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
Do note that with the current system, at least, it's either-or with regards to arty and direct fire. CUP managed to jury-rig a dual mode weapon on their frigate, but it doesn't work with AI. What I proposed would be an alternate variant of the gun (using the same model) with artillery functionality. At 120mm it wouldn't be a very powerful gun compared to 155mm, but still a nice thing to have as far as naval fire support goes.
