Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)

[chortles 263]

@snoops_213 As per the biki, "The actual sensor's range is the smallest of [maxRange, resulting objectViewDistanceLimit, resulting viewDistanceLimit] but never lower than minRange", though from what I understand in the case of IR said range is then multiplied by a target vehicle's irTargetSize value, so you may want to test against ground targets with irTargetSize=1; if possible, i.e. my use of Orcas for testing sensors vs. air contacts.

 

As for the remainder of your post, the IR and visual sensor templates' maxFogSeeThrough values are 0.995 and 0.94 respectively (although the BIKI calls 0.95 "approx. the normal visibility in fog (vis. sensor)"); the BIKI describes this parameter/value as "[a] fog threshold, sensor won't be able to see through a fog with higher value than this number", with a value of 0.1 being described as "sensor blocked by even smallest amount of fog" and -1 as "disable". Alternately, the nightRangeCoef value is a multiplier, with the BIKI describing values of 1 ("full range at night; if undef"), 0.5 ("range halved at night"), and the visual sensor template's 0 ("blind at night").

 

Note that in the case of IR my understanding is that a vehicle's signature is binary and static -- either detectable in a given situation (i.e. range, background, time of day, fog/overcast, etc.) or not, and the target vehicle's irTargetSize value (which affects the IR sensor's detection range) is not dynamic -- so differences in detection range due to variable such as how long the target vehicle's been warmed up, or how hot it is beyond "detectable", or the target vehicle's facing relative to the opposing sensor, seem to not be simulated, i.e. no "capable of detecting the Neophron at 5 km head on and 8 km from the rear"... unless you've found that they are? (Definitely no simulation of easier detection of targets in afterburner!)

[GBee2 68]

3 hours ago, chortles said:

Note that in the case of IR my understanding is that a vehicle's signature is binary and static -- either detectable in a given situation (i.e. range, background, time of day, fog/overcast, etc.) or not, and the target vehicle's irTargetSize value (which affects the IR sensor's detection range) is not dynamic -- so differences in detection range due to variable such as how long the target vehicle's been warmed up, or how hot it is beyond "detectable", or the target vehicle's facing relative to the opposing sensor, seem to not be simulated, i.e. no "capable of detecting the Neophron at 5 km head on and 8 km from the rear"... unless you've found that they are? (Definitely no simulation of easier detection of targets in afterburner!)

 

That would be a shame if true, I really expected the ir target size would be dynamic and not simply binary when BI first announced the IR sensor. It was certainly what we'd asked for with IR detection and I thought that's what we were getting.

[chortles 263]

Unfortunately I'm relatively certain that a lack thereof is why said parameter exists in the first place. We already know for a fact that radar cross section solely consists of the radarTargetSize value, hence the Black Wasp (Stealth) and the Shikra (Stealth)...

[SuicideKing 233]

On 7/20/2017 at 5:18 PM, snoops_213 said:

Just did a quick test with the wipeout so ir/visual only and set view distance 2000m and obj draw to 1600m and i had no sensor contact moving ground targets until obj draw distance (maybe slightly beyond but not much if any) and tried 4000m/1600m and same thing, which it should do since these sensors require a visual target. 

Your sensor can pick up targets beyond object view distance and up until overall view distance (or the sensor's max range). So you can pick up a warm contact at 4000m. However, a missile won't lock unless the object is within object view distance, i.e. you can't lock until you're at 1600m.

 

Given the performance impact of high object view distances (compared to that of overall view distance), it is perhaps a good idea to allow the missiles to lock out till overall view distance instead of object view distance. It doesn't make much sense to allow the aircraft to spot and select the target, but then not allow the target to be locked unless rendered. This is not BVR since it's still within the overall view distance radius.

 

By doing this you're closely linking the ability and effectiveness of the missile and pilot to the ability and expense of their computer, which kinda sucks to be honest.

 

Additionally, at ranges of <4km the pilot is exposed to IR SAMs, and <2000m (fairly typical object view distance) the pilot is vulnerable to AAA cannon fire.

[lex__1 422]

I have not read this discussion before. I made this ticket https://feedback.bistudio.com/T126339
This is a very strange combination - Active radar + IR rockets.

Strange combination - Active radar 16km + IR rockets ~ -4km + Anti-aircraft machine gun at 2km. 

wikipedia Characterizes the cheetah as - range of 5,500 m.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard

Quote

The guns are 90 calibres (3.15 m (10 ft 4 in)) long, with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) (FAPDS—Frangible Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot rounds), giving an effective range of 5,500 m. The KDA autocannon can take two different ammunition types; the usual loading is a mix of 320 AA and 20 AP rounds per gun. Combined rate of fire is 1,100 rounds/min.

 

Systems with active radar are equipped with AA\AT missiles of classes:

- earth / air

- earth / earth.

The problem is not active radar on board and missiles. The influence on this factor, the overall distance of visibility in the game, is depressing.

In the game, the cheetah is often the target for an air strike.

It is planned to create air defense systems, with active radar and missiles, guidance along the radar beam?

[xxgetbuck123 945]

@oukej 

 

Just curious. Is this normal? 

 

https://gyazo.com/53629358eeb1005552d2257dd75ac82c

 

This is me flying a Milsim OP my community just played. However I've noticed from myself and fellow aviation dudes in my community that the AI jets absolutely love to do this, while us humans can't do this on a dime like the AI or it can be done however it has to be pre-meditated mid dogfight and what dogfight ever goes to plan? 

 

Just thought I'd share cause this is some typical Grade A, AI bullshit haha. 

 

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

20 hours ago, xxgetbuck123 said:

Just curious. Is this normal? 

 

Hi. 

 

I just watched the GIF and it seems to me that the only thing that is "odd" here is that the AI fires a missile at a pretty large angle off boresight. With today's technology missiles may indeed have thrust-vectoring. They also have proximity fuses, and as far as I can see, the AI had you locked, fired at last possible moment, then missile did a sharp turn and missed you, but proximity fuse got you.

 

Was this online? There may be some desync/lag that makes the effect even worse. (In reality, the AI jet may have fired a second earlier, which is pretty far away from you when both are closing like that. Before the packets could be sent to your client, the jet seems to be much closer to you than it really was when it fired). I realize it's a stretch, but maybe that's it? I have never noticed this when flying SP dogfights.

 

Maybe the Shikra has that russian sensor infront of the cockpit that has a very large sensor range upwards. This would allow it to maintain lock even if you are nearly 90 degrees above it.

[dragon01 902]

This does seem like something that a real jet of that kind could do, especially with advanced missiles and an upward-looking IRST, like the one Russian aircraft tend to have. However, the Shikra we have in game seems to be a "monkey model" that doesn't have a HMD (which would be needed to actually lock that kind of shot) and I'm not sure if the AI is supposed to be capable of doing that, anyway.

[oukej 2910]

Both AI and players can do that.
Especially Shikra is perfectly suited for some almost grappling distance combat:
good IR missiles (up to 75° off boresight), capable of being fired at an extremely short range (75m)
+
the airplane's 360 IR sensors (players can quickly cycle through all acquired targets via "R" - they don't have to point at a target via HMD)
=
serious ninja stuff
 

[SuicideKing 233]

Any update on anti-radiation missile stuff? Haven't seen it mentioned in a while :P

[twistking 204]

I just tested the sensor-overhauled darter-drone on stable branch. The new sensor-tech really improves the drones...

But are there plans, to allow the operator to have the sensor window active, while not actively controlling drone or turret? This would be needed to make the most out of the new tech...

Of course the operator would have to be highlighted on the sensor, otherweise the data would be too difficult to read, i guess...

[the_one_and_only_Venator 162]

On 20.9.2017 at 11:24 PM, SuicideKing said:

Any update on anti-radiation missile stuff? Haven't seen it mentioned in a while :P

I made a little config for these as a small Mod.

It is working just fine. The missiles lock onto radar targets.

They can be countered by smoke.

 

The only problem is that the vanilla planes do not have anti radiation sensors except the wipeout and the neophron.  So only these can reliably use them.

[SuicideKing 233]

15 hours ago, the_one_and_only_Venator said:

They can be countered by smoke.

Probably shouldn't be countered by smoke, but should be countered by turning the radar off...

 

15 hours ago, the_one_and_only_Venator said:

 So only these can reliably use them

Yeah, dunno what the plans are for other planes and helicopters.

[snoops_213 74]

On 22/09/2017 at 0:55 AM, twistking said:

I just tested the sensor-overhauled darter-drone on stable branch. The new sensor-tech really improves the drones...

But are there plans, to allow the operator to have the sensor window active, while not actively controlling drone or turret? This would be needed to make the most out of the new tech...

Of course the operator would have to be highlighted on the sensor, otherweise the data would be too difficult to read, i guess...

The problem is that man class cant use data link only vehicle classes. I've tried adding it to a radio but alas this doesnt work either. Hopefully (not holding my breath as after tanks dlc no more features will be added bring on arma4 on enfusion engine!) they will allow radios to use this tech. I have data linked arty units that love when drones spot remote targets they go to town, as in non scripted AI artillery. What would be good is if some other vehicles could be fitted with some of the new sensors and made data link capable for the battle space like the ones currently used or being brought online. The current data link + extended map features simulate this very well but at higher difficulty levels extended map info is turned off, maybe if a vehicle has data link on extened maps could be turned on? 

 

13 minutes ago, SuicideKing said:

Probably shouldn't be countered by smoke, but should be countered by turning the radar off...

 

Yeah, dunno what the plans are for other planes and helicopters

Definitely shouldn't be countered by smoke only by turning radar off. But its part of a larger problem of vehicles know exactly when they have been fired at even if they can't see the launcher and launch counter measures straight away. It should be only if a crew member spots incoming missiles should CMs be used. 

[SuicideKing 233]

2 hours ago, snoops_213 said:

But its part of a larger problem of vehicles know exactly when they have been fired at even if they can't see the launcher and launch counter measures straight away. It should be only if a crew member spots incoming missiles should CMs be used. 

 

Yeah this is really, really annoying. Heck, I once shot a titan AT at a Varsuk facing away from me. it immediately deployed smoke (in the wrong direction of course), and the missile's lock broke!

[oukej 2910]

5 hours ago, ski2060 said:

@ Random BIS Dev :
does this:
 

"Tweaked: Using ammunition with the Datalink does not require line of sight on the target anymore  

Tweaked: Using ammunition with radar does not require active sensors anymore "

Indicate that remote targeting of enemy forces via Datalink is now possible and no direct LOS is required to prosecute the attack? So a datalinked radar vehicle can pass information to a launch site over a hill, and said launch site can now fire even though the LOS is blocked and may be obstructed completely?

Mainly the missile is now able to lock onto the target provided by the said radar. Previously was only possible in some form with autoSeekTarget. Locking also allows the AI to utilize the feature.
 

5 hours ago, ski2060 said:

Also, regarding the second bullet point.  Does this indicate that third party units equipped with Active Radar Home weapons can now fire those weapons at a target illuminated by someone else?

This is simplified to a degree that the missile uses it's own seeker from the start. But this way it can lock on a target provided by datalink without requiring the launching platform to have its own radar.

[ski2060 167]

@oukej I am trying to get some information from the Arma 3 Wiki, but it is not connecting and giving me a BIS Forum Maintenance page for the last 4 days or so.
Any idea what's up with that and when we can expect the WIKI to be back up fore reference?

[Alwarren 2765]

4 hours ago, ski2060 said:

@oukej I am trying to get some information from the Arma 3 Wiki, but it is not connecting and giving me a BIS Forum Maintenance page for the last 4 days or so.
Any idea what's up with that and when we can expect the WIKI to be back up fore reference?

BIKI works here.

[ski2060 167]

Hmmm  wierd.  any time I attempt to bring it up I get a "Please excuse our maintenance" page

It must have just come back up.  It wasn't working for me for like 4 days.

[oukej 2910]

 

[snoops_213 74]

On 21/10/2017 at 4:26 AM, oukej said:

Mainly the missile is now able to lock onto the target provided by the said radar. Previously was only possible in some form with autoSeekTarget. Locking also allows the AI to utilize the feature.
 

This is simplified to a degree that the missile uses it's own seeker from the start. But this way it can lock on a target provided by datalink without requiring the launching platform to have its own radar.

So a clear LOS is still needed to fire the weapon, but not necessary to actually see the target?

[the_one_and_only_Venator 162]

I decided to publish a small and simple addon for anti radiation missiles for the arma III vanilla aircraft.

This mod contains four diffrent ARMs.

 

Please go check it out, guys.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1186658763

 

Report any issues to me, please.

If you have any ideas let me know.

 

Venator

[jone_kone 158]

On 31/10/2017 at 12:31 PM, the_one_and_only_Venator said:

I decided to publish a small and simple addon for anti radiation missiles for the arma III vanilla aircraft.

This mod contains four diffrent ARMs.

 

Please go check it out, guys.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1186658763

 

Report any issues to me, please.

If you have any ideas let me know.

 

Venator

 

Looks good! Need tocheck it out!

 

Any interest in making a static radar unit for all factions maybe? ;)

[the_one_and_only_Venator 162]

8 hours ago, jone_kone said:

 

Looks good! Need tocheck it out!

 

Any interest in making a static radar unit for all factions maybe? ;)

 

Actually I have radar domes for all factions ready. But they have a problem. I changed the model of the Praetorian. But the physics are messed up. When hit by a missile it falls over what doesn't look good with radar domes. So currently I can just use it with attach to command and solid blocks.

I'm not sure whether I should publish that...

 

I also gonna try out RHS support for the SEAD missiles.

[ski2060 167]

Question:  Could the CUP and RHS Radar Towers/Antenna be set up to function as Radar Emitters with Data Transmission to SIDE for each Side?
Would they have to be configured as AI Crewed vehicles like the Vanilla Satic Launchers from JETS to work?
Or can they be set up to work without having AI crew?

Some of them have rotating Antenna arrays.  Would those be eligible for configuration to an Emitter AS IS?