Laser Guided Bomb Computer for aircraft

[viper0311 10]

I think that in the next DLC, there should be a computer, similar to the already implemented artillery computer, for aircraft with laser guided bombs. The way it would work is when you are flying, you activate the computer with the action menu. Then you would get a map that pops up with a radius around your jet (in the same way as the artillery). You place a marker where you want the bomb to be dropped, and when your jet gets in range, you click the fire button and the bomb is released and lands on target. I believe that this would be useful for people who are playing with AI and who do not have a human spotter for them to laser the target.

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

There are several reasons why this should not be implemented:

1) It's incredibly overpowered for the multiplayer game

2) Who really wants to be clicking on the map to designate a bomb target? Think about how fast you move over the target

3) You'd be making all LGB carrying planes capable of self designation (see 1)

It's also very unrealistic being able to magically lase your target from any direction/angle/speed

[KCIV 10]

I believe that this would be useful for people who are playing with AI and who do not have a human spotter for them to laser the target.

This would be great for single player. since you are reffering to using this with AI.

2) Who really wants to be clicking on the map to designate a bomb target? Think about how fast you move over the target

As for point 2... Hopefully you arnt clicking targets as you fly over them. you should be getting your target THEN setting up your flyover. But I would agree that it would be overpowerfull in Multiplayer BUT You would really be limited by ammo. Thus it wouldnt be as overpowerfull as you think. In my opinion the Autoreloading Arty is more overpowerd than this would be Because you can rain down hell 24/7 from a unsceen position.

I think there does need to be somekind of Bomb dropping Interface or HUD or something. (if there is one I am ignorant to it) and this is a good start.

Edited October 22, 2010 by KCIV

[wolfbite 8]

It would just be better to have it like the f117 mod or mando... instead of some random weird map clicking... And only aircraft with pavespike litening pods or other targeting pods should be able to use it... If you are flying a plane with a pave penny you cant designate....

TBH Dive bombing is pretty accurate in arma anyway.....

[viper0311 10]

I was going to suggest a type of mando system implemented, but I didn't want a ton of replys just saying "why don't you just get mando mod then?"

(I do have mando mod and many others, but i would like to have something implemented in the core game)

[Daniel 0]

There's no reason why GPS guided bombs shouldn't be in game. If they're deemed too overpowered, don't add them to the mission. Simple.

Systems like these need more fidelity. As mentioned above, lasers are too easy to use in all weathers and from all angles. Likewise, any GPS system should require the JTAC gives the proper altitude to keep the bombing accurate.

On the other hand...

http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.com/index.cfm/2008/1/19/JDAM :D

Edited October 22, 2010 by Daniel

[CarlGustaffa 4]

There is a lot of these requests for overpowered items lately, followed by "don't use them". Most missions wouldn't. So why waste resources (it takes time to make these things) on something that in the end turns out to have little value?

I'm generally against any freebies that has a high casualty rate and leaving no mop up for the ground crew and/or has little risk and/or no inconveniences. :p Why? Because it tends to make things over too fast. Missions/servers can't cope with realistic number of opposing forces. And AI are clueless about taking shelter or react properly. Even rifle kills are still far to frequent.

[Evil_Echo 11]

Politely dissagree with CG. Any and I mean any modern weapon is devasting in the right hands and the right situation. You admit that yourself in referencing rifle kills. Whether that is deplorable is opinion. Reality sucks on the modern battlefield. ArmA2 gives the player a way to experience that while not getting killed or maimed personally.

Most people have paid plenty for the legal version of A2/OA/etc. Saying they have to pay even more for additional reality is effectively stating that there should not be anyone outside of BIS coding for the game. Perhaps you meant something else CG, hope you did.

It's easy to blame the mod for a bad game, but my experience has shown it's rarely that - it's the people involved. If you want a superior game then you need superior mission design and a no-nonsense server administrator that ensures no-nonsense players. A large number of designs are sloppy -both the design and poor server admins open the door to abuse. So you get what you deserve for making such missions and running them that way.

Being headshot by a sniper is just as deadly as having my nuke wipe out the town your in. Or a GPS bomb hitting the building you holed up in. Dead is dead. The problem is when you allow for dozens of snipers camping without risk of counter-attack. Or free access to dozens of jets loaded with GPS bombs and no effective AA defenses. Or allowing way too easy access to a nuke and no repercussions for using it.

I'm looking at mods based on their merits, not whether someone can abuse it. So all in favor of GPS-guided weapons if they are made as realistic as possible.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Evil_Echo

[Gunter Severloh 4064]

I personally enjoy having a guy on the ground lasing for me, I feel teamwork is more enjoyable then doing everything yourself,

it really brings that teamwork spirit to the game.

I also like doing manual drops of GPUs, you learn how to time when to drop, I think reg pilots would know this with

some experience, and I believe real pilots that do carry bombs are trained to know when to drop bombs,

of course their instruments would give them the idea of when as well.

Isn't this something you can script, heck we can script everything else.

The more technilogical it gets, the less people start using their brains, eyes and ears. I dont want to say I hate

technology but im a big believer in useing your brain for things that aren't really complicated, like using a compass

over just staring at a gps screen, it allows you to get more involved in the game, you want immersion,

then lose the gps.

Just my two cents.

[[frl]myke 14]

There is a lot of these requests for overpowered items lately, followed by "don't use them". Most missions wouldn't. So why waste resources (it takes time to make these things) on something that in the end turns out to have little value?

I'm generally against any freebies that has a high casualty rate and leaving no mop up for the ground crew and/or has little risk and/or no inconveniences. :p Why? Because it tends to make things over too fast. Missions/servers can't cope with realistic number of opposing forces. And AI are clueless about taking shelter or react properly. Even rifle kills are still far to frequent.

Hell, it's you again. It seems to me as you want to deny anything that doesn't fit into your style of play. Followed that in the second monitor thread and here you also start this arguing.

Face it, it's not the assets that dictates how good or bad a mission plays but how the mission is designed. Myself i would welcome a proper implemented self-lasing capability and GPS/INS guided weapons. If the use of it destrys the mission there no one else to blame than the mission designer himself.

And having technically superior assets doesn't mean automatically victory for this side. I've played a mission in my clan where US troops having all goodies available (AH-64, M1A2, UAV just to name a few) while Opfor just had some AK's (few with scopes), RPG and some UAZ and trucks for transport aswell as a unarmed MI-17. US side had the task to lead a convoy from south takistan to the north, Opfor had the task to destroy this convoy. Route was free to chose.

I played on Opfor and we had no problem to locate and destroy the convoy long before it reached it's destination.

So maybe playing on the right server the right mission with the right people would do the trick for you.

[Evil_Echo 11]

[quote name='Günter Severloh;1774581

]I personally enjoy having a guy on the ground lasing for me' date=' I feel teamwork is more enjoyable then doing everything yourself,

it really brings that teamwork spirit to the game.

I also like doing manual drops of GPUs, you learn how to time when to drop, I think reg pilots would know this with

some experience, and I believe real pilots that do carry bombs are trained to know when to drop bombs,

of course their instruments would give them the idea of when as well.

Isn't this something you can script, heck we can script everything else.

The more technilogical it gets, the less people start using their brains, eyes and ears. I dont want to say I hate

technology but im a big believer in useing your brain for things that aren't really complicated, like using a compass

over just staring at a gps screen, it allows you to get more involved in the game, you want immersion,

then lose the gps.

Just my two cents.[/quote']

Good points. Nothing wrong at all with that and I too find it very enjoyable. I'm an old-school map and compass ground-pounder myself. Comes in handy when you don't have a GPS, or a nuke nearby just fried it along with the rest of your fancy gear. :butbut:

But also in favor of the high-tech stuff as long as it's done right. Both have their place.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well if you want modern aircraft and weapons systems then there should be some modern SAM systems too. ;)

What about the general option for players:

if there is an AI as gunner/pilot

> primary option - to fully override AI +

> secondary option - to use weapon sight?

Working MFDs could be great too...

[ricnunes 0]

I also completly agree that there should be a self designating capability for laser guided bombs. Currently without self designating capability the laser guided bombs and aircraft equiped with laser guided bombs are pretty much useless if you aren´t playing in Multiplayer AND there's a friendly human player equiped with a laser designator.

It's ridiculous that for example a "dumb bomb" like the Mk82 or the Russian FAB can lock targets (and are guided - which is even more ridiculous) in the game but the laser guided bombs can't lock any targets (except laser markers pointed by other units equiped with laser designators)!!

Regarding self designating capability for laser guided bombs I would prefer something similar to a real FLIR - Implementing the same or similar style of FLIR that we have in the Unmanned Little Bird (ULB) in aircraft that carries laser designators in real life (such as the A-10, Harrier, Apache, AH-1Z, F-35, etc...) would IMO be a great idea.

The idea that the author of this thread posted (viper0311) would IMO be great in order to model GPS guided weapons (such as JDAM) which are still not present in the game (without mods, I mean) since the real targetting of GPS guided weapons isn't that much diferent (even if it's not so simplyfied). So by modeling this idea we could finally have GPS guided weapon in ArmA!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Politely dissagree with CG. Any and I mean any modern weapon is devasting in the right hands and the right situation.

Uhm, yes, naturally. But typically you have to work to get there. That's what I meant with freebies btw.

You admit that yourself in referencing rifle kills. Whether that is deplorable is opinion. Reality sucks on the modern battlefield. ArmA2 gives the player a way to experience that while not getting killed or maimed personally.

Yes, that is me and my (by now, old) lack of firefight argument again. My issue is with apparently everyone always wanting bigger, badder, and worser - which is not helping the firefight issue. On the contrary.

Most people have paid plenty for the legal version of A2/OA/etc. Saying they have to pay even more for additional reality is effectively stating that there should not be anyone outside of BIS coding for the game. Perhaps you meant something else CG, hope you did.

I'm not even sure what you mean here, so yeah I probably meant something else. With freebie I mean stuff that has no risk or cost (not money spend on addon, lol) of use. In some cases you can put in artificial costs in a mission (do side missions to obtain artillery shells, to force some thought into how they are spent, instead of bombing everything to whithers). Who are to determine what is more realistic, an AC-130 or 60mm mortars? Both are realistic, it's not about that. It's about how much you can utilize it. If you made cars, would you make cars that sold 100 units or 10.000 units, net profit and cost ending up same?

It's easy to blame the mod for a bad game, but my experience has shown it's rarely that - it's the people involved. If you want a superior game then you need superior mission design and a no-nonsense server administrator that ensures no-nonsense players. A large number of designs are sloppy -both the design and poor server admins open the door to abuse. So you get what you deserve for making such missions and running them that way.

Yes, and of course I agree. My problem is that I find it extremely hard to use any of these extremely heavy hitters. Even the 80mm mortars are overkill for me. I don't need nukes. I need 60mm mortars ;) Less is more. I'm not saying that nukes are a complete waste to have in the game. I'm saying that 60mm mortars would for many mission makers be more valuable and useful to have around.

Being headshot by a sniper is just as deadly as having my nuke wipe out the town your in. Or a GPS bomb hitting the building you holed up in. Dead is dead. The problem is when you allow for dozens of snipers camping without risk of counter-attack. Or free access to dozens of jets loaded with GPS bombs and no effective AA defenses. Or allowing way too easy access to a nuke and no repercussions for using it.

Oh trust me, I'm not ;) And yeah, dead it dead. But personally I prefer when you can have fights and a lot of action that doesn't automatically mean dead. But there isn't a lot of small yield stuff to choose from. Rifles are far too effective (especially against AI), small vehicles feel a bit useless (wrt armor, vulnerability, and in some cases lack of proper sighting tools) for suppression effects, and we can forget about using mortars and artillery to "soften up" units, because we know AI doesn't take shelter, and the result is mass slaughter. I don't know, just not my idea of fun.

I'm looking at mods based on their merits, not whether someone can abuse it. So all in favor of GPS-guided weapons if they are made as realistic as possible.

I'm not against GPS guidance. But as far as I'm concerned, regular artillery is GPS guided enough as it is and covers that part of needed accuracy :p When did we have to use registrations? Even spotting rounds are rarely used (adjustment fire is still being used you know). There is no effect of drift by wind (and obviously no wind layers complicating issues further). Means the rounds are far too accurate. Compare A2OA accuracy with real bracketing wrt first round hit capability and following rounds. At maximum mortar range, the rounds will land in the same crater, exactly where you aimed. There isn't even variations in charge. Considering these (80mm) can kill me while prone in a hardened bunker, with GPS like precision - I don't see the need for GPS guided (especially artillery) shells.

Myke;1774592']Hell' date=' it's you again. It seems to me as you want to deny anything that doesn't fit into your style of play. Followed that in the second monitor thread and here you also start this arguing.[/quote']

Yeah, I guess I deserved that more than the first person who objected... :o It's not about playing style, but turning what is supposed to be a realistic game into a mainstream shooter. But I digress. If you have issues with me and my (and several others) standpoint about "map on secondary monitors", I suggest we take it in that thread.

Myke;1774592']Face it' date=' it's not the assets that dictates how good or bad a mission plays but how the mission is designed. Myself i would welcome a [b']proper[/b] implemented self-lasing capability and GPS/INS guided weapons. If the use of it destrys the mission there no one else to blame than the mission designer himself.

I highlighted the word proper. Is the artillery computer proper? When did mortars get auto aiming capability in real life? Because that's what it is. Maybe M109s and M777s have it (I don't know), but I think M119s still use deflection and elevation aiming. Did OP request similar to the already implemented artillery computer? So, eh, no thanks. I don't like magic... A proper artillery computer implementation would be some kind of separate equipment that FDC had, giving the aiming numbers to the gunners (gun crews might be too much). The gunner really have no idea where his round will land unless he's taking place during the planning phase of a planned firemission. For a solo operator, it means more work (write down or remember the aiming numbers), and less magic.

Myke;1774592']So maybe playing on the right server the right mission with the right people would do the trick for you.

Naturally it's all about mission design and to some extent who you play with. But read what I posted to Evil_Echo; Not so much a properly designed guidance system as much as the AC-130 request (or nukes or MOABs or whatever). I tend to throw my votes at the little stuff, the stuff that prolongs firefights (and for me thus makes the game more fun), rather than the big baddies which I can't use for anything.

Look, missions is what I do, and I find it very hard to utilize most of the biggies due to server/AI constraints, while attempting to prolong the action and make it appear natural and fun. Everyone else just wants bigger and badder equipment I can't use. I would like smaller and more useful equipment that are easier to put to good use without causing mayhem.

Edited October 23, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Gunter Severloh 4064]

It's ridiculous that for example a "dumb bomb" like the Mk82 or the Russian FAB can lock targets

(and are guided - which is even more ridiculous) in the game but the laser guided bombs can't lock any targets

(except laser markers pointed by other units equiped with laser designators)!!

Very good point, I see this as well, it should be the oppisite.

You shouldn't be able to lock on anything if its bomb related no?

I mean a lased target the bomb locks or follows the laser, how does that actually work?

But dumb bombs are really freefall bombs which when flying you would have to determine when to drop the bomb,

so your experience, or even reg practice should tell you how far til you need to drop the bomb, even in my last post

I mentioned that pilots have I forget what there called but instruments that they have to line up based on the target,

its like a scope with measurements that they use to line the target up so far ahead, and then when the target is reached

on the range then drop, so the instrument compensates for height and distance.

If your this high of the ground, then dial this number, if this far away dial this in,

just my guess.

[[frl]myke 14]

I highlighted the word proper. Is the artillery computer proper? When did mortars get auto aiming capability in real life? Because that's what it is. Maybe M109s and M777s have it (I don't know), but I think M119s still use deflection and elevation aiming. Did OP request similar to the already implemented artillery computer? So, eh, no thanks. I don't like magic... A proper artillery computer implementation would be some kind of separate equipment that FDC had, giving the aiming numbers to the gunners (gun crews might be too much). The gunner really have no idea where his round will land unless he's taking place during the planning phase of a planned firemission. For a solo operator, it means more work (write down or remember the aiming numbers), and less magic.

You might re-read the OP as the thread starter just named the artillery computer as example for what he would like to see implemented for plane weapons. Using common sense i (wildly) guess that he doesn't mean a exact copy but a proper (can highlight that aswell) implementation of self lasing capabilities as it is very common on todays air assets aswell as a proper INS/GPS guiding system to implement JDAM's and/or JSOW the way it's meant to be.

And the point is still valid although you feel it overused: don't like it? Don't use it (in your missions). It's all about having options.

:EDITH:

@CarlGustaffa

I love to have a good arguing going and even if the tone get's tougher i think we can still have a good discussion. So my previous "Hell, it's you again." you should take with a little smile. Keep up the arguing just stay open for other minds aswell. That said, keep it comin, mate. ;)

Edited October 23, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Oh I did :D Btw, it's not about overuse. It's about value of use. There is so much equipment that deals out serious blows in terms of fatalities. We have plenty of options in the high yield area. Where is the low yield stuff? Like:

1) 60mm mortars - half way yield between house leveling 80mm and 40mm grenades? Keep in mind a mortar is already higher yield than an artillery shell of the same size.

2) Timed fuses - for ffar (illumination) and MAAWS (illumination).

3) Proximity fuses - for low altitude HE bursts (saves buildings) but nice against units in the open.

4) T&E mechanism for Mk19s, which would make them useful as indirect weapon systems. Instead we have one without zeroing (except the Stryker one), making it ineffective even for long range direct fires (other than the CROWE one, due its sight).

5) Sights for M2s which would enable them to be used at a distance, but increase the recoil (currently absolutely none whatsoever) and dispersion so the suppression effect is maximized (versus making it a sniper weapoon, which I don't want).

6) Smoke systems that actually works. It will currently help against detection, but not after detection. Chance of automatic suppression through smoke? Sure, but not being able to accurately track an obscured enemy.

Again, if everything had zero development time, sure, give me all. But it doesn't, and I would like more focus on the "little things" that would make this more into a believable war simulator, rather than this race for high tech equipment that low tech (ref my GPS accuracy on artillery statement) can already achieve. Sure a proper Laser Guidance System for aircraft would be useful (btw, unlike the main map on secondary display ;)), but I say no because I would like precious development time spent on "more important" (for me anyways) issues. Hope that explains why I may sound so negative on many suggestions.

Edit: Oh, and I completely agree (see, it's possible, lol :p) with ricnunes. I would go even further - let IR targeting be based on current IR signature (based on hotness vs signature size) instead of definition of "IR Target". This one I didn't think through though, but I know incidents where Javelin has targeted same infantry forces instead of intended target.

Edited October 23, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Evil_Echo 11]

I mentioned that pilots have I forget what there called but instruments that they have to line up based on the target,

its like a scope with measurements that they use to line the target up so far ahead, and then when the target is reached

on the range then drop, so the instrument compensates for height and distance.

...

Are you referring to CCIP, aka "The pipper of death"?

B8jzi4kVV70

It'd be nice to have a proper ballistics computer on board jets, I know Mando has done a lot in that area. Who knows what else he and I may come up with someday.

...

Yes, that is me and my (by now, old) lack of firefight argument again. My issue is with apparently everyone always wanting bigger, badder, and worser - which is not helping the firefight issue. On the contrary.

...

Yes, and of course I agree. My problem is that I find it extremely hard to use any of these extremely heavy hitters. Even the 80mm mortars are overkill for me. I don't need nukes. I need 60mm mortars ;) Less is more. I'm not saying that nukes are a complete waste to have in the game. I'm saying that 60mm mortars would for many mission makers be more valuable and useful to have around.

...

Oh trust me, I'm not ;) And yeah, dead it dead. But personally I prefer when you can have fights and a lot of action that doesn't automatically mean dead. But there isn't a lot of small yield stuff to choose from. Rifles are far too effective (especially against AI), small vehicles feel a bit useless (wrt armor, vulnerability, and in some cases lack of proper sighting tools) for suppression effects, and we can forget about using mortars and artillery to "soften up" units, because we know AI doesn't take shelter, and the result is mass slaughter. I don't know, just not my idea of fun.

...

Look, missions is what I do, and I find it very hard to utilize most of the biggies due to server/AI constraints, while attempting to prolong the action and make it appear natural and fun. Everyone else just wants bigger and badder equipment I can't use. I would like smaller and more useful equipment that are easier to put to good use without causing mayhem.

CarlGustaffa, Myke, and I do seem to often visit the same threads. We each have unique viewpoints about how to play A2 and are each doing our best to make significant contributions to the gaming community. The good part is despite our often significant differences we manage to discuss these matters without degenerating into bickering.

CG, I'd love to give you those 60mm mortars, complete with a real aiming system ( knobs, optics to view the bubble, etc. ). But I build weapons systems and features, not models. Hopefully someday NouberNou will finish his project. Then I'd add the QT, VT fuses and various shells for you.

Meanwhile, my current niche involves trying to improve the AI behavior we both agree needs work. What I dislike is AI not fighting back with the tools they already have - hence my artillery fire director. It's a tool, does not tip the scales either way if used as intended. In fact it can extend the life of a mission - it targets troop concentrations like real arty does, so you don't want to camp for long. :)

Anyway - people should take our opinions as just that.

[Gunter Severloh 4064]

Are you referring to CCIP, aka "The pipper of death"?

Ya I believe thats it, I think they might be different with bombers, not fighter bobers but bombers themselves,

where they have the goggles, and view finder that you look down on and I think its like a scope at the bottem of the plane.

pretty cool though.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Very true, and well said :) Yes I wouldn't mind an uber realistic system in ACE, and hopefully it will teach people how to use it instead of scaring them off. But that is still ACE, or an addon based approach to it. I've done the configs for setting up different yields for HE airbursts, and a dialog to drive it all (still "magic" though, since it uses a createVehicle based approach, but it had charge based dispersion and automatic switch to high angle if terrain hit was detected), although I never updated it to Arma2 (looks funny now). In the end I scrapped it since it wasn't possible without addon based shell yields, and I needed mission to remain addon free. Not realistic by any means, but it felt more realistic than anything I'd tried at the time.

And yes, I feel the same thing about AI - not able to use what they've been given, so I gave them an arty/mortar system of my own. And the results are pretty much the same - don't camp - ref my "can kill me while prone in a hardened bunker" comment above ;) But I have to admit, in a mission with few cover options, the best and most nerve wrecking mortar experiences I've ever had was in a mission where scripted mortars was only grenades (the sound gave them away). I'm betting the designer thought that mortar shells was just too devastating. Which I happen to agree on. Check out youtube videos - mortars are so common and inaccurate "you get used to it", while in A2OA they are way too fatal.

[ricnunes 0]

You shouldn't be able to lock on anything if its bomb related no?

I mean a lased target the bomb locks or follows the laser, how does that actually work?

Well, my point regarding the issue is:

- I don't understand why "on hell" does the Hellfire missiles (for example) can lock any "IR target" (such as a tank with its engine on) thru the TAB key and a laser guided bomb such as the GBU-12 doesn't have this capability when BOTH the Hellfire and the Laser Guided bomb have the EXACT SAME guidance system in real life (which is by following a spot where a laser is aimed at)?? I really would like to see a member of the BIS staff to answer this question (but I know that this probably will never happen...)!

Anyway, getting back to your questions:

The TAB key is obviously NOT a realistic locking system, not only for the Hellfire and Laser Guided bombs but for any other weapon or aircraft targetting system (except perhaps for a radar, such as the Longbow radar found in the Apache) so the TAB key is obviously a simplification route that BIS took regarding on how to model aircraft targetting systems and aircraft self designation capabilities therefore this gets me back to the point that I mentioned in my last paragraph: The TAB is modeled in the Hellfire in order to give the aircraft that carries that weapon a self designating capability so why "on earth" doesn't a Laser Guided bomb have this same capability (TAB lock) in ArmA2/OA since nowadays any aircraft that carries a laser guided bomb has self designating capabilities (remember we aren't in the 80's anymore and neither does ArmA2/OA models the 80's military forces).

Regarding on how does laser guided bombs actually work here's the "deal":

- A laser must be aimed to the spot where the bomb must hit - It doesn't matter what place this is, it could even be a simple spot on the ground without nothing there (this of course would result on a wasted bomb, but I think you get the idea, no?)

- That laser can be aimed either by the aircraft that carries and launches the bomb if this aircraft carries a laser designator (thus "self-designating" the bomb) or instead the laser can be aimed by another "platform" (a soldier on the ground with a laser designator, an another aircraft equiped with a laser designator, etc...)

- The laser is normally aimed thru an optical device such as a camera (having termal imaging or not).

- In the case of "self-designation" the aircraft that carries the Laser guided bomb carries a camera (that usually has "normal" and termal imaging modes) and this camera is used to aim the laser. After the laser is aimed towards the intended target the bomb will "lock" on the spot where the laser is aimed at and after the bomb is released it will follow the laser whereever it's aimed.

I think this video clearly show how a "self designation" of a laser guided bomb is made (this was from a US F-16 engaging a group of insurgents in Iraq):

[KCIV 10]

that video has been removed. :( :( :(

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Works for me.

[nkenny 1057]

*snip* (remember we aren't in the 80's anymore and neither does ArmA2/OA models the 80's military forces).*snip*

Thats the thing though isn't. The arma2 interface/gameplay elements and engine are still wired/conceptualized around Operation Flashpoint. Newer features are constantly stiched to the central package and the crudeness of these additions have been stretching our belief since arma1.

Having said that: OA is largely a step in the right direction. I'm sorry that I don't have anything specific to add in terms of munitions and controls-- its a bit outside my familiarity.

-k

[pre-Vet 10]

There are several reasons why this should not be implemented:

1) It's incredibly overpowered for the multiplayer game

2) Who really wants to be clicking on the map to designate a bomb target? Think about how fast you move over the target

3) You'd be making all LGB carrying planes capable of self designation (see 1)

It's also very unrealistic being able to magically lase your target from any direction/angle/speed

Since everybody is aways going on and on about Arma not being a game but a simulator (but when it comes to suggestions everyone cares about balance): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Sniper_XR