Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

oukej

Former Developer
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1063

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Everything posted by oukej

  1. oukej
    It was on our list but unfortunately we had to cut it. Sorry about that.
  2. oukej

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    oukej replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    If this is true, then the new FCS mechanic is like an aimbot. Yeah, it is and it's wrong ;)
  3. oukej

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    oukej replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    It should be possible to go up to 3000m since the FCS has been added (2500 for APC with autocannons). Has some turret got forgotten in the process? It can be increased even more.
  4. oukej

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    oukej replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Can be...more or less :) Also there are different systems, older, newer, solutions can be acquired by using different methods and information sources (e.g. calculating lead from turret's angular speed while tracking is not the only one). Simulating these nuances is outside of our scope. We'd be aiming for just one system, one keybind, one mechanic. Add a new gameplay choice to fill in one blank space in the combined arms big picture :). I hope I won't disappoint tank simers too much, but we're not about to simulate one particular system, nor all of them. We're trying to choose a compromise that generally works well for the game, can be quickly grasped but at the same time is challenging enough and isn't a silver bullet for every situation. And possibly have some customization of it. Btw - you've raised good concerns about it being too fast and not requiring player to weigh its usage. We'll be on lookout for that. Feedback from the game and playing with the system is the most valuable for us!
  5. oukej

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    oukej replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Please stay focused on the FCS itself.
  6. oukej

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    oukej replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Both are possible. 1st via new wpn property FCSMaxLeadSpeed. 2nd via not configuring the ballisticsComputer (1 or 16) and just using the IDC to show the lased range (check how it's done on RCWS, Rangefinders or LDs)
  7. oukej
    The issue we face is that atm it's too late for a clean up or major changes. What if someone relied on a particular guidance in one of these weapons? We've got some plans how to tackle it but we'll keep them under the hood for now.
  8. oukej
    It shouldn't be. Is some vehicle configured this way? Thanks for the rest of the feedback, will take a look at the AA vs. Aircraft imbalance.
  9. oukej

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    oukej replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    ACE and RHS as a proof of gameplay in Arma environment :) Otherwise as usually - our mil. advisors, available manuals and docs, other sims. Gunner will auto-engage only with the coax. There are. Like Vesna-K / AST-B for target tracking. However it's probably better to keep these as something unique to a specific vehicle rather than default base. You can, with a small delay. Let's see if that works or if it is too OP and easy. There's still quite a lot of time between lasing and impact, even if you're really quick in pressing fire right after lase.
  10. oukej

    Tanks - Fire-control system

    oukej replied to oukej's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Few additional notes Updated https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/A3_Targeting_config_reference#ballisticsComputer Lasing and adjustments are more or less instanteneous - this is based on sekrit documents we've got about Chally 2's ;) For gameplay purposes the LRF cooldown has been set atm to 1sec. available IDCs for optics are 198 - distance (0000-9999) 199 - speed (0000-9999) 200 - wpn adjusted (show/hide)
  11. oukej
    True. Can you pls try out the expansion aicrafts (VTOLs, drone, prop. plane) if these feel better? CAS airplanes don't utilize the improvements made during the post-release development.
  12. oukej
    Try player action ["ActiveSensorsOn", vehicle player] The actions are ActiveSensorsOn, ActiveSensorsOff. Ref. CfgActions
  13. oukej
    So far the idea was that we'll leave the responsibility for the mission maker not to add insane loadouts ;) There are no restrictions when using scripts and some restrictions when setting up a vehicle in Eden editor.
  14. oukej
    All of these are datalink related atm. They set the vehicle to transmit (targets, own position) and receive data. You can access the TGP feed via Custom info panel
  15. oukej
    I believe we've briefly explained the decision already. In short - Helicopter AFM was feasible due to previous work on Take On Helicopters. It still took quite a lot of time and effort to make it work in Arma 3. Adding the libraries to airplanes (even if we used the connected libraries) would mean starting from scratch. We weren't sure we could make it for Jets DLC in time, there was a lot of questions and risks and it would have probably limited us to one feature/platform upgrade only. - Improving targeting and radar was something the players wanted for ages. The technical aspect of it has been fully under our control. And it's something that can enhance the gameplay across the whole platform, not just airplanes. Similarly to dynamic vehicle loadouts. And we were even able to improve the airplane damage model, HMD/HUD tech and few other things. As much as I'd personally love a better flight model I'm fully confident in the decision we've made.
  16. oukej
    Should've expected that ;) Making perfect sense doesn't say anything about feasibility of implementation.
  17. oukej

    Development Branch Captain's AI Log

    oukej replied to royaltyinexile's topic in ARMA 3 - DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

    Given optics with a high magnification (e.g. in tank combat) the AI was sometimes able to detect the player at a distance where player was not yet able to see the AI. So you can have a smooth control over the vehicle not just when driving but also when commanding. Fleeing makes the AI basically combat ineffective so it's better to keep it more as a last resort action. One step at a time, one punch at a time, one round at a time, innit. For better dogfights, more fun and challenge.
  18. oukej
    This only relates to the AI - they no longer fly towards the edge of map and they become more challenging and fun in dogfights. It would make perfect sense but it's unlikely to happen. Currently not planned.
  19. oukej
    Yup, I think we can rule them out.
  20. oukej
    Agreed. We need to address that at least for the Main branch release.
  21. oukej
    I am sorry, not in this vanilla setup and not via in-game UI layout customization. Loss of resizing is the new system's drawback. However it's possible in config to adjust panels' positions per vehicle and panels' sizes per resource. It should be possible using just the config :) Take a look at https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Custom_Info#Properties, SensorsDisplay >> showTargetTypes. You can also check the RscCustomInfoSensor resource and create your own instead of it. Define your own symbology, use red dots instead of the warning sectors, etc.
  22. oukej
    https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Custom_Info#Properties Look for SensorsDisplay >> Range
  23. oukej
    The Custom info panels are quite open and customizable. Individual vehicles can have different sets of modules and their submodes (e.g. ranges - it's up to the modder if he or she wants just two - e.g. 2km/4km - submodes or 666km/1337km/2035km/1968km/....). The modules can look differently, have different symbology. There can even be more than two panels (only there are no actions to control them).
  24. oukej
    It has been one of the concerns. We can't aim for the realistic values here. Arma terrains are too small for proper BVR. Currently we are looking at something like ranges above 4km as the Radar's territory and squeezing the others below. Partially based on data we get about what view distances the players use. We need to scale things down. Thinking about how to best convey the properties, pros and cons, and usage of each system to provide that #buzzword "authentic experience" even within the game limits. For example we realize that modern IRST and optical systems can extend the usual within visual range combat well into BVR territory. But that's something we couldn't turn into fair gameplay without simulating tons of other aspects. Every game has its certain level of abstraction :)
  25. oukej
    This is no longer possible with display submodes. One could create separate displays for each range with different visuals. But we wanted to limit the amount of panels to a level where it can be still reasonably toggled only in one direction. So we created submodes but the submodes - unlike individual modes - use the same resource. However we can at least adjust the ranges so that the circles represent a "nicer" number. Not sure we can fit that in. There's already the bearing of own turret or vehicle shown in the title bar. Getting the target's bearing is often just a flick away. Otoh the operator has no other good way to get target's speed or altitude. Range can be estimated from the circles but you may want to have more precise info to select proper weapons. There's also target's own bearing which would be commonly displayed elsewhere but we thought the travel vector could be enough in this case.
×