Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Deathstrike
User

Projects

User does not belong to any projects.

User Details

User Since
Mar 6 2013, 9:27 PM (377 w, 2 d)

Recent Activity

May 10 2016

Deathstrike added a comment to T74815: Landing with the WY-55 will make the MROT to be destroyed.

Have not had this issue with landing. However the issue is present where anyone entering or exiting the Helicopter whilst the Engine is running will destroy it. This was listed as fixed in the Dev Branch, but does not seem to have been pushed with 1.08.

May 10 2016, 7:20 AM · Arma 3
Deathstrike added a comment to T74377: MISSING DOORS AND FLIR FROM DEV BUILD AH-9 AND MH-9.

Indeed it seems odd to have removed them, they added further flexibility to the aircraft for mission makers to decide which is really what counts here. I hope they are added back in future.

May 10 2016, 7:10 AM · Arma 3
Deathstrike added a comment to T74339: Laser designator/designated targets not affecting (GBU) bomb glide slope.

With regards to pilots being unaware of the lase, I would blame how the 'Radar' displays the laser target as an enemy vehicle, which it is as far as ArmA is concerned. (This possibly also plays into things, as it has since ArmA 2.) Also we are still missing Heads Up Display symbology for a laser, whereas most Targeting Pods (Or the A-10's Pave Penny) alongside an aircraft Fire Control Radar can translate and display the point on the HUD or Horizontal Situation Display (a moving map display) as symbology. If you want an example, look at either the A-10C in DCS or the F-16 in BMS. I'm not too familiar with the A-10C myself, however I am aware that the F-16 displays lased targets with a standard box reference on the HUD (which can be displayed on the Helmet mounted display too.) Whilst not the best references, without being able to pull A-10 and F-16 drivers they do atleast work off of available manuals and documentation on both airframes and systems.

With HUD symbology, it is much easier for a pilot to reference their targets if being talked on via JTAC or ground sources. Without them, you need a good 9-line or talk-on to the target to ensure you are close enough to 'lock' the lase in the first place. So the gain in situational awareness would help less experienced ArmA pilots, whilst not being unrealistic in what aids are given to the pilot. It would also obviously assist in the 'locking' process.

For the locking process itself, whilst I know someone hold the Tab lock system close to their heart. If HUD symbology was implemented (without a CCIP/CCRP system) then a no-lock launch like how ACE and Flight Simulators do would be again, easier for weapon employment and newer pilots. As the need to nose down and 'lock' the target, then pull up again to release in extended/high engagements can disorientate newer pilots with the speed of actions necessary to get a good release. Whereas with the correct HUD/Radar symbol, a Pilot could approach and release the bomb towards the lase relying more on their positioning (which comes with them flying the aircraft, rather than trying to use a system such as tab-lock)to ensure a good release. Then a Line-of-Sight check would verify the bomb can see a lase, then guide onto it. In reality, lasers are also coded (as simulated previously in ACE) which can prevent situations where multiple laser systems are active and could miss-direct the bomb. In ArmA, a simplified system would be for the bomb to simply find its closest lase and go for that. Encouraging players to ensure that they are only lasing one target at a time for that given area within the bomb's field of view.

Whilst being a bit far there into suggestion or discussion territory, I do see at the moment the only resolution here is to either fix the tab-lock system for lased targets or to change how it is done. So I would like to provide feedback for whomever has been assigned this task so that maybe, this older system could be changed into something more accessible to newer pilots in ArmA 3.

*Edit* To clarify some prior points, the dedicated server testing is what shows up the laser-lock on and guidance issues. In SP it appears to work fine. Myself and my friend were tried with both UAV and hand-held systems, trying both lock and all the cycle target variants.

May 10 2016, 7:09 AM · Arma 3
Deathstrike added a comment to T74339: Laser designator/designated targets not affecting (GBU) bomb glide slope.

Bumping due to still being relevant in latest patch 1.22. After some buddy testing in a dedicated server environment, from what I could pick up difficulty settings play into laser locking abilities when trying to use the GBU-12.

Setting the difficulty to Veteran made myself unable to lock onto the lase, whilst reducing the difficulty to Rookie allowed me to lock on at 700m from the target, at around 10ft from the ground. (I had started at 1500m altitude, then dropped down in increments of around 400m to decrease the distance.) The lock distance and altitude required however is not optimal for bomb employment as you can imagine.

I believe the issue stems more towards how the locking system works at the moment, as other tickets regarding locking distance tied to view distance, knowsabout and possible other factors. When locked the bomb does work as intended, however the issue is attaining that lock in the first place.

May 10 2016, 7:09 AM · Arma 3
Deathstrike added a comment to T73822: A-143 CCIP Bomb Recticle incomplete and wrong.

I'll add onto this in that the reticule displayed in the A-143 is the same that has been in since Armed Assault, it is non-functional and does not in any way indicate the release point or intended position a munition will hit.

A CCIP (Constantly Computed Impact Point) system is what has been needed for some time in Arma, however due to how aircraft are kept in a simple and untouched fashion until late, it has never been implemented. It was only recently implemented in Arma 2 ACE by Nou as demonstrated here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI6ZCjd8kkA
(His method also includes a CCRP system, which in my opinion is not necessary for Arma's environment and is less user friendly.)

Nou has shown that is is entirely possible in Arma. It's just likely you'll need to wait until BIS get to the stage where they start touching up the fixed-wing side of things.

I would also suggest that due to this being the issue thread for CCIP. That the original author tidies it up and provides more information relevant to the topic to better prioritise it for the BIS Dev's/Moderators.

May 10 2016, 6:52 AM · Arma 3
Deathstrike added a comment to T68081: Object ID is hidden behind other object ID.

Would like to bump this as no other ticket is available on the issue of object ID's being hidden behind one another. The issues seems prevalent in all of the bridges in Altis which have their ID's hidden beneath the road surfaces ID's.

Additional evidence here:
http://i.imgur.com/TmQMGp5.png

In-game grid of the example 198, 119.

May 10 2016, 3:41 AM · Arma 3

May 9 2016

Deathstrike edited Steps To Reproduce on T60037: AH-9/MH-9 Overly strong construction.
May 9 2016, 9:22 PM · Arma 3
Deathstrike edited Steps To Reproduce on T59876: KA-60 (Unarmed) Weapon clipping.
May 9 2016, 7:17 PM · Arma 3
Deathstrike added a comment to T59249: Helicopters stick to surfaces whilst landing at speed.

From my personal view, this attempts to replicate a wheel brake option which is something that is useful for Helicopter's such as the KA-60. However at current I agree the stopping force is too great for simple wheel brakes, however the concept should not be abandoned.

I would suggest reducing the default state to a "Brake Off" that will allow for rolling landings or Taxing as the ticket maker states. However, for situations such as Pinnacle Landings. (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/2288550101_57e3706e65.jpg) Then having a Wheel brake option that can be toggled on via the Action menu could be a life saver.

May 9 2016, 6:45 PM · Arma 3