Rocket Missile Speed Adjustment

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

I've been noticing that in ArmA 2:OA the rockets and missiles seem to fly fairly slowly, not according to real world specs.

This is especially apparent at about 2:06 on the following video...

...when the A-10 could practically arrive at the target before the rockets do.

I suspect that one reason this is happening is that the missile speed is not being added to the launching platform's current speed (something most apparent with aircraft). Just because a missile or rocket may release from the platform before achieving full thrust, that doesn't mean the momentum of riding on the platform should suddenly be disregarded.

[[frl]myke 14]

Sorry, i fail to see any rocket launch at the given timeperiod of the vid. I see a A-10 doing a strafing run with it's GAU-8 and after that a A-10 dropping flares.

But believe me, i've spent a lot of time with missiles. They're horribly FUBAR and partially you're right, but not in the way you think.

In general, missiles are too fast. As example the Sidewinder reaches Mach 4 ingame while it's real pendant reaches ~Mach 2.5.

On the other side, engine burns out way too early and physics simulation after engine burnout are just ridiculous.

I did several tests, mainly with the Ch-25 (due to it's size it is easiest to observe): often the missile misses a target just because it slows as rapidly down that it even starts to drift backwards. I think to remember that the "magic distance" was about 1400 meters. So you couldn't hit a target that was 2 km away.

So finally you're right, at the end they're too slow. But all in all, they're just FUBAR.

[twisted 127]

Myke;1796835']Sorry' date=' i fail to see any rocket launch at the given timeperiod of the vid. I see a A-10 doing a strafing run with it's GAU-8 and after that a A-10 dropping flares.

But believe me, i've spent a lot of time with missiles. They're horribly FUBAR and partially you're right, but not in the way you think.

In general, missiles are too fast. As example the Sidewinder reaches Mach 4 ingame while it's real pendant reaches ~Mach 2.5.

On the other side, engine burns out way too early and physics simulation after engine burnout are just ridiculous.

I did several tests, mainly with the Ch-25 (due to it's size it is easiest to observe): often the missile misses a target just because it slows as rapidly down that it even starts to drift backwards. I think to remember that the "magic distance" was about 1400 meters. So you couldn't hit a target that was 2 km away.

So finally you're right, at the end they're too slow. But all in all, they're just FUBAR.[/quote']

does mandobile's addon fix this at all? if not, and as you seems knowledgeable about such things, what overarching solutions would be proposed? just curious that's all.

[[frl]myke 14]

As far it is about MMA controlled/created Missile i guess Mandoble has made it right. Can't say for sure but as far as i know him i would be very surprised if he didn't got it right.

However, BIS should rework general missile handling, allowing more accurate settings. Right now, all settings do influence each other that makes it almost impossible to get the settings done right. If you change acceleration it influences also max speed, change engine burntime and you also change acceleration and maxspeed.

I guess this is why missiles feel so wrong ingame, BIS wasn't able to find nearly correct settings either.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Ah, thanks! Flares. I must be spoiled by addon flares, because I don't remember ever seeing flares dispense so closely together.

And thanks for your thoughts, but do you agree that rockets and missiles seem to launch from a fixed point in game-space, rather than a moving point on the aircraft?

"Closing speed" seems to be a big factor in Battleground Europe, bullets from a WW2 fighter plane having a better chance of penetrating the skin of the fuselage at oblique angles when the closing speed between the two birds is greater.

[[frl]myke 14]

Please don't compare ballistic bullets with missiles. While what you say is true for bullets, which are used at short ranges, for guided missiles it doesn't work. A missile has a engine which will accelerate to it's top speed and then maintain this speed until the engine burns out.

Keep in mind that a bullet is accelerated inside the plane (gun chamber "moves" at same speed as the plane) so the plane speed is added, while a missile is just dropped and then the missile engine starts.

That said, if a plane is moving faster than a missiles topspeed, then the missile will even slow down. A-G missiles usually are below supersonic, depending on type somewhere around Mach 0.5 to Mach 0.9. A-A Missiles are faster, usually Mach 2.5, some up to Mach 4, the AIM-54 even up to Mach 5.

You might imagine a car dropped from a truck. If the car can reach 50km/h as top speed and the truck is drivin with 100km/h, what happens?

Anyway, i agree with you that missiles in general would need a major rework in all aspects.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Sorry, while I wasn't trying to compare ballistics and missiles (only pointing out that closing speed is important in another similar game where the physics are much more realistic, though I'm sure that FFAR's do a certain though possibly negligible amount of kinetic damage in addition to their explosive effect), your theory about missiles is akin to believing that they have gears for wheels and run on bicycle chains.

A missile does not launch from a fixed point in space and it doesn't immediately slow down to zero miles per hour, just because it has been released. (FFARs certainly don't work this way.) The missile has momentum, even before its engine fires. The firing engine has less work to do to bring a missile to its maximum speed (limited by maximum thrust and the missile's drag coefficient Vs. air viscosity?) if there is already momentum in its intended direction. Once released, the aircraft's speed is irrelevant to the missile's maximum speed. It is only the inherited momentum and the other attributes of the missile and the environment that combine to result in its current and max speeds.

For example, would a HEAT round, if launched from an aircraft, explode more deeply in the target's body if fired from an aircraft with a higher closing speed or a lower one? While the explosion is triggered faster than the blink of an eye, an eye focused on the very spot of impact probably wouldn't see the missile at all. Simple common-sense says that the detonation would occur more deeply in the body of the target, even if only by a millimeter.

[maturin 12]

For example, would a HEAT round, if launched from an aircraft, explode more deeply in the target's body if fired from an aircraft with a higher closing speed or a lower one? While the explosion is triggered faster than the blink of an eye, an eye focused on the very spot of impact probably wouldn't see the missile at all. Simple common-sense says that the detonation would occur more deeply in the body of the target, even if only by a millimeter.

It's not related to your point, but the front portions of most simple HEAT warheads simply disintegrate on impact with hard armor. But the fuse moves faster and the charge goes off as the cone behind the standoff probe is shattering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BNg9W1WogM

Slow-motion video of RPG apparently lacking an actual charge.

[[frl]myke 14]

The missile has momentum, even before its engine fires.

Correct, but it also has air friction. Once released. it will slow down to the speed the engine is able to maintain if the plane was flying faster than that. However, while engaging ground targets, the plane will almost always be slower than that resulting in a accelerating missile.

The firing engine has less work to do to bring a missile to its maximum speed

Also correct. Nevertheless the engine can't maintain a given momentum that is higher than it's max speed. It will surely not slow down instantly to it's capable max speed but it will slowly decrease speed.

Simple common-sense says that the detonation would occur more deeply in the body of the target, even if only by a millimeter.

And also this is correct. But missiles aren't designed to penetrate the target with kinetic energy. The destruction is made by the explosive charge in whatever way it is intended to work. I wouldn't say that kinetc energy has absolutely no effect but compared to the warhead the effect can be ignored.

But this is now going way beyond what should be done in ArmA 2. The missiles simulation need a complete rework from BIS, making them at least more believable if not accurately simulated.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

Thanks, Myke, but is it REALLY going way beyond what should be done in ArmA 2?

WW2OL/Battleground Europe has been going this far for years, giving its players what fans of OFP have been asking for since its inception. Watch some "How to kill..." videos for Battleground Europe on YouTube. If I shoot this rifle from this distance at this spot at this angle, I stand a pretty good chance of killing the gunner inside this vehicle. Each panel of an armored vehicle has its own thickness and resistance to kinetic objects, kinda like how riders in a helo in OFP/ArmA have always been vulnerable to machinegun fire through the windows. (But now I really am talking about ballistics, so I digress.)

Thanks for your input.

The Cornered Rats have a development team that is smaller than that of B.I., I'm guessing, and they are willing to put in the time and effort. If B.I. isn't willing to make the game that should be made, maybe they should make another game that inspires them? I'm tired of reading posts from fans who feel like they've been ripped off, AGAIN.

[ray243 11]

Even RPGs in real life flies faster than BIS's RPGs