Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
maruk

ARMA 2: Community Configuration Project (A2CCP)

364 posts in this topic

We would like to introduce a new initiative aimed at improving Arma 2 Experience. In a nutshell, result of this initiative should be small addon with various fixes and tweaks in existing game configuration files that can become part of the official distribution of the game. There are few key things necessary in order to make this initiative succesful and possible so if you are interested in participating please make sure to read more detailed overview below. Few key points:

* only fixes of obvious bugs or missing definitions are within the scope of this initiative

* all submitted changes must be under a license that allows Bohemia Interactive to freely include and distribute it

* changes must not break any of the existing official missions and campaigns

* kju is going to coordinate and submit resulting addon to Bohemia Interactive for final review

=======================================================

# Focus on A2/OA/OA DLCs

# Config only changes

---------------------

## Upgrade A2 content to OA standards

## Fix config issues in these products

## Integrate config tweaks to improve the gameplay

## Focus on implementing atomic changes (small, easy to understand)

# Community involved from the start

-----------------------------------

## By suggesting/submitting specific config fixes/improvements

## By discussions in the tickets and forum

## By voting tickets to get higher prio

How will it work:

-----------------

# Suggestions via DH CCP project or BI Forums

# Process along the lines of the CIT (Obs, Exp, Repro, Demo mission)

# Key factors for changes to get done:

1. NOT break existing missions/campaigns (at least official content)

2. Simple change (easy to understand and evaluate the consequences)

3. Quality of the report (only good info can be made use from)

4. Player acceptance

5. Votes

# One addon maintained by dedicated admin (kju)

# Submitted to BI from time to time to be part of beta and full patches

Wiki: https://dev-heaven.net/projects/arma-2-ccp/wiki/Wiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only ever saw two animation loop defines wrong in arma.rpt since conception , however i hope the system you Are aiming for proves to be productive and such a project for TOH rearmed is spawned from it I believe that config system would reep numerous benefits in future .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please everybody contribute!

This is our chance to fix a lot of issues that have been reported before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better late than never I guess! Most of these fixes are out there already, it'll just be a case of consolidating and sanity checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of questions:

Does this make sense?

class ksvk: Rifle

fireLightDuration = 0;

fireLightIntensity = 0;

And default fireLight of M8 for their SD vars?

class m8_holo_sd: m8_base

class m8_tws_sd: m8_base

Should Hellfire get manual control in addition?

Or only add a laser for the gunner?

class M_Bolide_AA: MissileBase has

manualControl = 1

irLock = 1;

airLock = 1;

+

canLock=2 (weapon)

does this make sense?

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS_70

like laserLock=1 too? or canLock=1 (=manual guidance in vet)

any idea how Su34 weapon control should be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

all gunner controlled, rockets by pilot or even more?

do tanks also engage cars/trucks with sabot or just armored vehicles?

Please comment, share your insights, provide sources - thanks :bounce3:

Edited by .kju [PvPscene]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this make sense?

class ksvk: Rifle

fireLightDuration = 0;

fireLightIntensity = 0;

And default fireLight of M8 for their SD vars?

class m8_holo_sd: m8_base

class m8_tws_sd: m8_base

No sense at all.

do tanks also engage cars/trucks with sabot or just armored vehicles?

Pretending that sabots in ArmA2 would work as in real life, gunners should use HE on soft targets for guaranteed destruction.

Should Hellfire get manual control in addition?

Or only add a laser for the gunner?

Manual control like adding LOAL/LOBL or only laserguided?

Yes to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-----------------

# Key factors for changes to get done:

  • Upgrade A2 content to OA standards
    ...
  • NOT break existing missions/campaigns (at least official content)

Can I suggest these two items are conflicting. In my experience A2's Harvest Red campaign is already broken by the current OA engine.

Otherwise a nice idea, although it seems quite late in the games lifecycle to start now. Thank you kju!

Would adding secondary iron sights to A2 scoped rifles be possible with config only, or would they need new datapoints?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a mod back in 2010 that added IR lasers, flashlight lights and alternative scope views to original ArmA2 weapons that had basis for those OA features.

What was its name?

Because it's a must for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should Hellfire get manual control in addition?

None of the AGM-114 variants is "manually guided" so a definate no to this.

Or only add a laser for the gunner?

Laser for Gunner should be definately added to the AH-1Z and AH-64, simply because they really have it.

Also generally, all missiles should get a recalculation of range and speed values. A AIM-9 simply doesn't fly with nearly Mach 6 as it actually does but at Mach 2.5.

I wont come up with any values for this since the values are quite impossible to get right without any knowledge of the internal engine code for this aspects. Actually values can not be computed as it doesn't have any logical rules that could be followed, changing values can be simply done by guessing and results are inpredictable. So this should be done by someone who knows the engine code behind the simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Mr Burns

To clarify: The KSVK should have a light flash when fired, right? While the SD variants of the M8 should not, correct?

@ ceeeb

I think it can be done and it mostly a case by case decision for each suggested change.

@ metalcraze

You might mean the ANZINS pack by deFUNKt.

@ Myke

Manual control for Hellfire could simulate laser guidance.

It is quite similar to locking your own laser and move the laser instead.

As both don't work that well, the idea would be to have both.

Another idea could be to give the pilot the control over the Hellfire and have the gunner the laser.

This would make it work better.

Overall this is limited to what can be done with config only changes.

zGuba is working on missile speeds. He did an excellent job for ACE and RHS already:

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/59747

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/28705

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
any idea how Su34 weapon control should be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

all gunner controlled, rockets by pilot or even more?

One of the purpose of dual crew seats of Su-34 is ability to take control of all systems by one of the crew members after another has been wounded or died. All the cockpit systems are designed for easy access both by pilot and co-pilot. So I'd say both pilots should have equal weapon controls. While both crew members are safe, gunner operates all the weapons, but pilot has ability to take full control of them instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This means the current setup with the gunner having all weapons assigned is fine, right?

The pilot can take over with manualControl (except for missiles with delayed locked cant be locked by the pilot)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2247791']This means the current setup with the gunner having all weapons assigned is fine' date=' right?

The pilot can take over with manualControl (except for missiles with delayed locked cant be locked by the pilot)[/quote']

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please feel free to include the cannon/main gun tweak I cranked out with [ASA]Oden's help here, if he consents too.

Also note that the above tweak is slightly incomplete - the SPG9 and related UAZ variants as well as ACR vehicles (T72A4 and Pandur II) have not been done, so a smidgin of work remains. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some things I could think of and which probably haven't been mentioned so far:

Units

Every faction should have their basic 'soldier', 'sniper', 'sharpshooter', 'AT' atc. units without specifying their weapon in brackets. Mission makers now can't give takistani 'Partisan (AK-47)' or 'Grenadier (M16 GL)' any other weapon without the obvious difference. Same for takistani militia, PMC contractors and some BAF and US units.

M47 Dragon

I think that the missile is quite underpowered. Although a bit older, it was designed to destroy MBTs, but in currrent version it can only destroy vehicles up to BRDM-2 by single hit. It should be able to destroy vehicles up to BMP-2 / T-34 and knock out T-55 with single hit.

Stringer, Igla, Strela and RBS-70

The same as above for aerial vehicles. They can disable helicopter instantly, but sometimes even three missiles aren't enough to completely destroy them. So AI wastes lots of missiles on already disabled helicopters and it's also hard to get credit for destroying them.

AA missiles as whole

Very small maneuverability make them hard to use for AI. For man portable AA lanuchers it's enough to fly a bit higher (300 - 400 m) over battlefield (or circle around) and even missile fired directly at your tail can't hit you.

Aircraft missiles should alse have some delay between firing next one. AI should wait if the first missile destroyed the target and if not, then fire again.

Flares

As AA missiles are great danger for all aerial vehicles, pilots should use more flares than just four. Burst of ten could be default (and only) setting for all aerial vehicles. These three last suggestions should result in better and more dangerous air and anti-air combat.

Also amount of flares carried by helicopters and planes could be revised - 360 flares for single Merlin is far too much.

BAF backpacks

All backpacks available in editor are empty from the start and their variants are available through command, all BAF backpacks in editor are already full and there is no empty BAF backpack variant, so it would be good to unify this.

BRDM-2 ATGM

There should be some delay between firing another missile as they are manually guided one by one by gunner. In current version it's like missile machinegun.

Vehicle armor

Modern wheeled APCs (LAV-25, BTR-90, Stryker, Pandur II) have 'soft' armor (150) ingame, which is, however, made of much more durable materials then simple aluminium on BMP-3 (300) or BMP-2 (250), so they should have more vehicle armor (350-400). Watching most modern APCs being destroyed by single mine or knocked out with one RPG or even HMG fire is quite sad.

Vehicles with explosive armor - M1A2 TUSK, M2A3 Bradley and T72M4 CZ should also have logically more armour than their basic variant.

Weapons

RPK and MG36 are missing the MG symbol by squad member icons and, like other LMGs, its user should not be able to have backpack or missile launcher.

One should not be able have backpack or missile launcher when using AS-50, which is same class as M107 and KSVK.

As L86A2 is weapon of sharpshooters, it should therefore have 'sniper' instead of 'mg' symbol by squad members.

Lee Enfield probably shouldn't have sniper symbol. It doesn't even have any scope.

SPG-9's rate of fire is far to high.

Edited by WattyWatts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some addons out there that give the tube fired non guided AT wepons a ballistic trajectory ad remove the smoke trail...as it should be with all unassistet Grenades. That would stop the exploiting of AT weapona as pocket artillery with ranges around 1500m without any projectile drop and would also reduce the effective range on moving targets down to the realistic 200-400m. Some of this addons or scripts run already well in vanilla MP missions without client side addons. unfortunately I have no clue what script or addon is used to do that but it works.

Another urge would be to restore the Missile warning that got broken for most RU, USMC and US air units with BAF DLC and finally add Flares and Missile warning to the UH-1Y and MV-22 and TI to RU vehicles like T-90 and BTR-90 and USMC LAV-25.

There is an Addon that fixes that but its not well MP accepted.

Edited by Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ metalcraze, WattyWatts, Beagle

Thanks for your input so far. Unfortunately to see something implemented or changed, you need to put in some more effort.

  • Best case create a ticket at the CCP project space
  • Or as alternative a post here is fine, if:
  • It is very specific about one change
  • It clearly mentions what is to be changed
  • You provide sources/references why it should be changed
  • Or reference to CIT tickets - we have many with good quality and high votes

I cannot just change things because you guys suggest something or I like them.

Either it must be an obvious issue, or basic web sources show that the current state is lacking or unrealistic.

High votes (for specific changes) can be another indicator that people want to see something done/changed.

Thanks for your cooperation!

Edited by .kju [PvPscene]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The missile warning thingie is in my CIT signature.

It's not my fault that so few vote for broken key features that are not workign anymore since BAF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Beagle

https://dev-heaven.net/issues/27242 is a (good) start, but it really lacks any sources.

Sure the A2 vehicles should be upgraded, but it is not about giving all vehicles just perfect capabilities, yet something that reflects reality.

The number of votes show that many like to see improvements there, yet someone has to do the research to do a proper implementation.

@ metalcraze

Thanks for creating a ticket. Although similar goes for your ticket.

Yes A2 content should get upgraded, deFUNKT already gave his consent,

and it seems like reasonable changes. Still it lacks sources.

It may sound obvious to you (given your military background / experiences / insights),

however you need to present information for someone/an audience without.

It is also important to give everyone a chance for a fair judgement about the suggestion.

The bottom line is if changes get implemented thoughtlessly and people will complain hereafter,

it will have negative consequences on this initiative.

To be clear:

My job here is to evaluate your suggestions and implement or integrate them (if feasible).

Your job is to provide the suggestions, the arguments, the sources and best case (partial) implementation.

There should be enough military experts and people with enough free time around here to take care of this part.

---

Bug #16115: Pistol dispersion too high

Looking for input here: What would be a realistic dispersion for each of the given pistols? Also same for SD or not?

PS: Suma provides an example in there how the research works and has to work.

Edited by .kju [PvPscene]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0