Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, darkChozo said:

Re: switching to manual ranging, it seems to make the most sense to have the range setting buttons as a de facto manual mode switch. For example, if you're FCS-ranged to 1258m, and hit Page Down, it enables manual mode and dials you down to the appropriate ranging increment, 1200m.

 

Doesn't really matter that much though, the FCS is pretty much better than manual ranging in every situation aside from indirect fire.

In shallow terrain where a difference of 20 pixels in terrain can mean 500m difference in range the fcs can become unusable, if you want to engange something else than vehicles.

1 hour ago, .kju said:

no competitive PvP play would want to use that new FCS system as its boring.

generalizing much? The terribly generic optics of all A3 combat vehicles have no value whatsoever once you remove the laser system. At that point the only advantage it has over early T-34 peepholes is that it has magnification and thermals.

 

However, subversions of this FCS with reduced feature set would be very usefull to have: 

  • A version where it can only set the zeroing range based on the range finder distance - without automatic lead and no speed display
  • A subversion where it can only lase for range info but has no automatic adjustement of anything
54 minutes ago, en3x said:

Super awesome read on research in different types of tanks with all of their specifications.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84M00044R000200890001-1.pdf

I digged through it and its nothing you cant find on wikipedia pages... The diversity of the systems are quite slim in how they function, especially when advanced ballistics are left out of the equation. Coindidence/Stereoscopic rangefinder are also something that would require major work in the renderer and technical graphics department. So that leaves "laser or no laser" for rangefinding and "lead calculation or no lead calculation" for fcs as possible choices.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those reduced versions would be very useful for configuring older tanks. Aside from those, the only "FCS" option are coincidence and stereoscopic rangefinders, and those are only found on very old vehicles. 

 

Also, I'd really love to see the ability for the commander to take manual control of the turret. It should be possible for a server to disable this feature (I recall some mod, possibly RHS, considering but not implementing it over trolling concerns), but I believe that for serious tank crews playing realistic missions, it'd be very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern tanks have:
1. The fire control system includes the combined (day/night) sights
2. Sights with line of sight stabilization - two-Plane stabilizer arms
3. Automatic tracking of targets
4. Digital ballistic computer
5. Complex guided weapons
From all the above, at this point in time, the game implemented the first and fourth paragraphs.
Need consideration and implementation:
The third point is realized partially on the basis of AI intelligence (AI when the gunner of the tank). When you occupy the gunner seat, I have a feeling that you control the position of the trunk and rotation of the turret. Your trunk is very susceptible to vibration and bending, coming from the hull.
The sights do not stabilize the line of sight, making it difficult to fire when tank is moving.
- Avtomaticheskoe target tracking. This feature is missing on the tank, but well implemented on the UAV camera function of capturing the target. This eliminates the human factor, in terms of sighting errors in motion, or at a target which moves at speed.
Complex guided weapons. There is no such ammunition. Managed AA\AT the charge, to destroy helicopters and armored vehicles at long range. Extends the range of hitting the enemy target at distances up to 4000 meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dragon01 said:

 It should be possible for a server to disable this feature (I recall some mod, possibly RHS, considering but not implementing it over trolling concerns), but I believe that for serious tank crews playing realistic missions, it'd be very useful.

Why server? It's no different to "take controll" in helicopters. If the pilot / gunner enables it, commander can do it. If he does stupid shit, gunner disables it, problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno, I just remember it came up. I don't remember what was the original debacle, but it's a solution to concerns that were mentioned back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, x3kj said:
  • A version where it can only set the zeroing range based on the range finder distance - without automatic lead and no speed display
  • A subversion where it can only lase for range info but has no automatic adjustement of anything

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)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that brings ArmA 3 tank and IFV fire control mechanics and target aquisition methods closer to the standard that late 90's tank simulators (Microprose: M1 Tank Platoon II, Steel Beasts) already had, is absolutely welcome. By my personal vanilla CTI MP perspective this is more then welcome

But the true progress is stil lacking...an armour penetration system and a handling physics that gives tanks the weaknesses they posses RL.

Currently it does not matter much of you hit an MBT into the rooftop, the rear, the sides or into the front...and even if you do...the crew will happily just get macically and instantly "beamed" outside and shoot you in the head at 200m whiel you are stil holding a launcher that sways all over the place.

It was, in the end, this kind of progress that the game still makes, what made me switch from ArmA 2 to ArmA 3 as of late as 2016.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma3 vanilla tanks, have a riflescope which graphical representation, assumes existence of the ballistic computer and system of automatic maintenance of the purpose. In tanks of the previous generation the graphic grid of a riflescope was sated with a scale and values, for definition of a distance to the purpose, or had a stereo optics for data and correction of a distance to the purpose. It is not necessary to confuse two different generations of tanks, these are different systems of riflescopes, and the way of an aiming became closer to the original now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, .kju said:

 

did you see anyone complain about the addition? i only saw some people making arguments to make the system a little more advanced and realistic to use.

 

 

Yes,. I replied to someone that complained that tanks would be overpowered with the new FCS system and that measures should be taken to balance it against PvP play. And quite frankly, I can't listen to that tune anymore. Every time something is added the KotH/PvP crowd starts to complain about balancing. It already caused the dreadful "Nexus" update were a perfectly working stamina system was removed from the game and replaced with a senseless weird stamina bar that even has to tell me "oh you are running up a mountain", a system were you can carry more than you can carry, and in order to have any effect at all, introduces a weapon sway that is completely over the top.

 

You are arguing there should be an SQF command to disable/tweak things. There WAS such a command before the Nexus update. It wasn't good enough. The whining continued until the entire system was removed. Repeal and Replace. Always a good idea.

 

I am all for making the game more skill based IF and ONLY IF it is a realistic change. I would LOVE to see something like Mando Missile in Vanilla. There is an advanced helicopter flight model but everything else is still mostly the same old same old. I would wish for a lot more of that stuff. Make it necessary to actually understand how an Anti-tank launcher works, make an AA missile not just lock on but require correct handling. I am all for that.

 

But don't tell me that you need to make something weaker because it imbalances PvP. You might have guessed it already, I don't care about PvP; I am fine with making things optional. I would have wanted to have the stamina system optional. Oh wait, it was - you could actually switch it off. But that wasn't good enough for the KotH crowd. It had to be replaced by something ridiculous,

 

Bottom line, the beauty of Arma is that in many cases you can chose how to play the game, and I am all for having options. I am, however, getting seriously pissed off when I see AGAIN people complain about balance in PvP when this balancing is already responsible for a number of changes that made the game WORSE, and I will continue to argue against this type of behavior. I am excited about the addition of a realistic FCS, and I am not going to be quiet when the KotH/PvP crowd again triest to kill or muddy a feature for the sake of balance.

 

Optional - fine. Your way only - not fine. 

  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alwarren said:

The whining continued until the entire system was removed.

 

I sure hope this madness doesn't lift its ugly head ever again, would be a real shame to see another great feature get watered down to stupidness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I know such guys who want to counterbalance T-100 with T-80))). It is a step backwards, in the past, It surprises me. Systems of global positioning break the atmosphere of PvP of times of the games OFP-Arma2))). Arma3 a view of modern tactics of fight is pleasant to me more. I welcome more realization of modern technologies in a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stay focused on the FCS itself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At measurement of a distance to the purpose, the trunk does not correct a tilt angle, the trunk remains in the situation. It only influences change of a trajectory of a bullet. Visual change of behavior of a trunk is planned, changes of a tilt angle of a trunk when there is a change of a distance?

Long ago I dream to see that the sight and a trunk of the tank received real correction of a zero point. https://feedback.bistudio.com/T83302

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is the small white square next to the range indicating? Alwarren stated it's the readiness of the laser, but for some reason I doubt that because it stays the same once a distance was measured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about FCS of modern tanks (Abrams, Leopard 2 and so on) computes leading for moving targets? You basically follow moving target with turret and lase. In that moment FCS gets range (if lase is successful) and from angular rotation speed of turrent computes target lead and offset crosshair to it so you just reposition our sight over target to include lead and bang!

 

EDIT: Just saw initial post said gun is adjusted for range and movement so probably it is what I talked about. Move along citizen.. :)

 

Look here:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/03/2017 at 9:21 PM, oukej said:

Small square (Ready to fire box) - indicates that the gun's zeroing and lead have been adjusted (does not indicate whether the gun has been loaded and is ready to fire)

R3vo On page one 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need (in this order) :

1) 1-2 sec. FCS gun lead delay

2) Laser Warning Receiver implementation !

3) Passive and Active protection systems (Shtora, Quick Kill, Arena, Trophy, Afghanit, etc.)

4) Armor penetration simulation if there's time left :)

 

Thank you Bohemia.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sammael said:

it would be nice if we have simple FCS overlay pic in 1x zoom mode

df1b25de1e03t.jpg

I disagree. They should either go full interior or nothing at all in my opinion. They had quite a few back in Arma 2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nikoteen said:

We need (in this order) :

1) 1-2 sec. FCS gun lead delay

2) Laser Warning Receiver implementation !

3) Passive and Active protection systems (Shtora, Quick Kill, Arena, Trophy, Afghanit, etc.)

4) Armor penetration simulation if there's time left :)

 

Thank you Bohemia.

Anything else? :)

I suggest my video related the wishes:

 

All the above would be good but I doubt if we get #3 and #4. First two quite sure we gonna get.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nikoteen said:

We need (in this order) :

1) 1-2 sec. FCS gun lead delay

2) Laser Warning Receiver implementation !

3) Passive and Active protection systems (Shtora, Quick Kill, Arena, Trophy, Afghanit, etc.)

4) Armor penetration simulation if there's time left :)

 

Thank you Bohemia.

 

 

Where did the 1-2 second delay come from?  Is that a real thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. Calculating lead in not instantaneous, nor is moving the turret to align the gun properly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, das attorney said:

 

 

Where did the 1-2 second delay come from?  Is that a real thing?

It's a real thing. After measurement and calculation the FCS still has to move a 18 ton turret and a 4 ton gun to the according solution. This can't be done instantly.

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

×