FCS for helicopters.

[*LK1* 10]

Let me be perfectly clear at the start: I really dont like that Tab-Lock system. But to be honest the "Tab-lock" system is almost realistic for most modern systems.

well almost. except for an huge difference that you obviously know, with the systems suggested you have to SPOT the enemy which is the 90% of the work in today's battlefield. and finding the enemy is also funny. like hunting.

with the tab+click system you have just to press the tab button like a fool :(

I will abstain from voting on the above options as they are simply unrealistic. The best would be option 4/

4/ Targetting view mode with zoom TDC slew, ground stabilise/lock/lase.

well that would be the best solution, cuz is the real 1.except for 1 thing:

you are not only asking a realistic procedure, you are asking something which is a bit difficult for the classical and usual bc2 player that bis seems to aiming at... so i prefer a compromize. probably we will find the tab+click system back in arma3 and we are just wasting time, but if we have a chance i guess we will have it with a semi-realistic process of acquisition targets instead of the real 1. my personal idea.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

mmm i didnt want to unleash the troll, but somehow i did it.

Hahahaha, none of your options have much to do with real life.

wrong. option 1 is the correct procedure to shoot tow missiles if you dont know(guess wikipedia can help you). and tow missiles can be loaded even in the apache and other helicopters.

He says he doesnt want to vote on your options, and that he would prefer a 4th, more realistic option, and somehow you come to the conclusion that he likes the current system. You are deluded.

no. simply i guess that asking for the best solution avaible( 4th is the best for me too but is just a dream)when is also the most hard to get is not a good idea. at least not for me.

but is a personal opinion you know...

For what its worth, the tracking systems vary so massively from vehicle/system to vehicle/system that implementing one across all would be just as unrealistic (afterall, thats why you want it, right?) as the current tab-lock system.

no at all. 2 solution is more similar to the real procedure than the tab+click system. take your time and think about it.

plz turn off your troller kid behaviour or otherwise i dont see a brilliant future for the thread and for you neither.

Edited July 9, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Daniel 0]

Can't vote: you're poll is missing choices and your options aren't precise enough. For example moving the mouse would be an accurate simulation for firing the AGM-144K - it's following the beam that's slaved to your control or your line of sight.

BIS actually need to make the distinction between the K and L versions and what aircraft can utilise them.

The FCS does need a major overhaul but this thread isn't the right way to discuss it.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daniel

[dm 9]

wrong. option 1 is the correct procedure to shoot tow missiles if you dont know(guess wikipedia can help your ignorance). and tow missiles can be loaded even in the apache and other helicopters.

Ahh, wikipedia, the source of all reliable information...

TOW can NOT be mounted on Apache without fairly extensive modifications to the Apache, since it lacks the relevant control hardware and wiring for deployment of TOW. Its not as simple as just bolting the weapon to the pylons and then off you go, but ofcourse with all your knowledge you knew that, right?

Also, the TOW in game is already targeted like this - you have [the option to] to steer it onto your target. That BI also configured it to be able to lock on is an oversight...

no. simply i guess that asking for the best solution avaible( 4th is the best for me too but is just a dream)when is also the most hard to get is not a good idea. at least not for me.

Then why imply that he wants the current system?

no at all. 2 solution is more similar to the real procedure than the tab+click system. take your time and think about it.

Option 2 is realistic for systems that require it - TOW, HOT, Konkurs, MILAN, etc etc.

For Hellfire, especially on Longbow equipped Apaches, the tab system is actually pretty representative of how the real system works. The radar detects the targets, the computer identifies and categorises them, the pilot/gunner then chooses which ones to engage.

plz turn off your kid behaviour or otherwise i dont see a brilliant future for the thread and for you neither.

Stop making dumb requests then. The game is already capable of supporting optical-guidance to target. Dont request that they enable it universally for systems that are incapable of it (radar hellfire for example) in the name of "realism"

(For the record, in a vehicle equipped with both laser designator and laser-hellfires, you can lock a laser hellfire to the laser target, then use that to steer the missile onto things like troops; the game already supports it. Lets not make it any more unrealistic by allowing radar weapons to do the same thing...)

Oh, and thanks for being so concerned about my future, but its been nice and secure here for nearly 9 years, I think I'll do fine without jonny-come-latelys' advice. (Especially when he has been banned once for breaking the rules already...)

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:29 ----------

BIS actually need to make the distinction between the K and L versions and what aircraft can utilise them.

They already do. The engine has always supported it. That ArmA2 (and any of its addons) are not configured to make the most of this technology out of the box is indeed an oversight on behalf of BIS. But I can tell you from first hand experience that it is entirely possible to configure radar-only 144L's and laser-only 144K's. Each of which will only lock onto radar and laser targets respectively. It is also entirely possible to configure optically guided weapons like TOW, which require the user to steer the missile onto target after its been fired.

[*LK1* 10]

Ahh, wikipedia, the source of all reliable information...

ye in most of the cases. especially for military stuff. you probably have missed the wiki trasformation during these years. anyway this is not the point of the discussion.

TOW can NOT be mounted on Apache without fairly extensive modifications to the Apache, since it lacks the relevant control hardware and wiring for deployment of TOW. Its not as simple as just bolting the weapon to the pylons and then off you go, but ofcourse with all your knowledge you knew that, right?

of course. for your information tow on apache was also used in combat and i dont have said is easy to implement. is used also in other helicopter more ofter than with the apache. and similar weapons to the tow are used on the russian helicopters for example in the mi-24. so having a sort of manual guide system for missiles inside the game is not wrong cuz is not real as you said.

For Hellfire, especially on Longbow equipped Apaches, the tab system is actually pretty representative of how the real system works. The radar detects the targets, the computer identifies and categorises them, the pilot/gunner then chooses which ones to engage.

no. you are saying it another 1. not all the apaches especially in us army are longbow. so no, not all the apache has a radar. and even in this case the current radar avaible for the apache or any attack chopper is pretty much different from the real 1s. is like overpowered. that's the problem when you think you are an expert but you are not. sometime you fail :rolleyes:

so the tab system is not an "actually pretty representative way to represent how the real system works" :icon_ohmygod:

Stop making dumb requests then. The game is already capable of supporting optical-guidance to target. Dont request that they enable it universally for systems that are incapable of it (radar hellfire for example) in the name of "realism"

you seems to dont understand again. i've proposed those solutions on the poll as more realistic and similar to the real procedure instead of the current. and i still believe in it. they are a good compromize between realism and fun.

i said "realism" only to qualify the suggestion of the guy that proposed the real procedure. i would like it too but i guess we will never have it.

Oh, and thanks for being so concerned about my future, but its been nice and secure here for nearly 9 years, I think I'll do fine without jonny-come-latelys' advice.

people usually dont even reply to you cuz you clearly are a troll. my mistake.

Can't vote: you're poll is missing choices and your options aren't precise enough. For example moving the mouse would be an accurate simulation for firing the AGM-144K - it's following the beam that's slaved to your control or your line of sight.

BIS actually need to make the distinction between the K and L versions and what aircraft can utilise them.

The FCS does need a major overhaul but this thread isn't the right way to discuss it.

mmm most of the people had understood my point of view and, in favor or not, they have voted, so where my option are not precise enough?

anyway:

this is the way to expose your opinions. your way DM on the contrary is just an immature provocation. "hahaha", "dumb requests" and blatant sarcasm are not allowed here dude.

so i suggest you to stop.

Edited July 9, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[Daniel 0]

i would like it too but i guess we will never have it.

ACE did it years ago. No reason why BIS can't do it. Just make it so Apaches can't fire AGM-144L in the absence of Longbow FCS. I'm not really against the tab system either, as long as it reflects the radar's real life range and capabilities.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Daniel

[*LK1* 10]

ACE did it years ago. No reason why BIS can't do it. Just make it so Apaches can't fire AGM-144L in the absence of Longbow FCS.

i know im still playing with the ACE. but im still waiting for this feature.

[dm 9]

for your information tow on apache was also used in combat

References to back this claim up?

and similar weapons to the tow are used on the russian helicopters for example in the mi-24. so having a sort of manual guide system for missiles inside the game is not wrong cuz is not real as you said.

I only said it was wrong in your example, and I quote:

when you shoot your missile you can guide it by moving your mouse(like in ACE if i dont remember wrong). well i guess is another unrealistic way to shoot an hellfire but at least it give you the opportunity to implement a bit of skill(not so much) in the procedure

I actually went on to list a selection of optically guided weapons, and explain that the engine as already capable of doing it . But as always, you ignore the facts and focus on trying to be right (when clearly you are not)...

no. you are saying it another 1. not all the apaches especially in us army are longbow. so no, not all the apache has a radar. and even in this case the current radar avaible for the apache or any attack chopper is pretty much different from the real 1s. is like overpowered. that's the problem when you think you are an expert but you are not. sometime you fail

Ok, so you're saying that the AH-64A's and non-Longbod D's optically guide their missiles to target? Clearly, once again you have proven yourself to be the font of all knowledge on military subjects (WP is a "chemical" weapon/AMX-10 is "unstopable" anyone?).

The non-longbow Apache models work in one of two ways:

1. They track their targets with a laser, and use laser-hellfires to engage the laser (so in a roundabout way, they do indeed track their weapons to the target visually, since the laser is slaved to the optics - assuming they self-designate). The engine already supports this.

2. The AH-64D models are capable of recieving radar information downloads from longbow equipped Apaches. They then use this information to target radar hellfires. The Apaches were inteded to be fielded in such a way that for every 3 non-longbow Apaches, there would be one longbow equipped Apache to provide radar information. But again, you already knew this, right?

so the tab system is not an "actually pretty representative way to represent how the real system works"

Seriously, do some research before trying to look smart. The Longbow system can (and does) detect, categorise and prioritise 128 targets, providing the pilot/gunner with the 16 "most dangerous" (assuming they mean SPAAGs and the like) to select (number 1 through 16) and engage via an MFD menu.

Again, you knew that alredy, right?

you seems to dont understand again. i've proposed those solutions on the poll as more realistic and similar to the real procedure instead of the current. and i still believe in it. they are a good compromize between realism and fun.

i said "realism" only to qualify the suggestion of the guy that proposed the real procedure. i would like it too but i guess we will never have it.

Yet clearly optically guiding fire-and-forget missiles is the more realistic approach, yes?

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

ACE did it years ago. No reason why BIS can't do it. Just make it so Apaches can't fire AGM-144L in the absence of Longbow FCS. I'm not really against the tab system either, as long as it reflects the radar's real life range and capabilities.

But non-longbow AH-64D's CAN fire -144L's. They just require targetting information datalinked to them from a longbow-equipped AH-64D.

Edited July 9, 2011 by DM

[Daniel 0]

But non-longbow AH-64D's CAN fire -144L's. They just require targetting information datalinked to them from a longbow-equipped AH-64D.

That was implied, they do indeed need a Longbow equipped aircraft in the vicinity. Incidentally, have ACE or any other mods simulated that?

[dm 9]

That was implied.

Right, I guess I just read it as in "an Apache without a longbow cant fire this missile, period" :o

You are correct.

[maddogx 13]

Perhaps the options were just badly worded, but I abstained from voting since none of them seem right. As has been pointed out, different systems have different targetting methods, and Arma3 should attempt to represent each one as closely as the devs can manage.

[Remon 10]

None of the above.

My solution would be to make the targetting system fully moddable. Vanilla working with a tab-targetting system etc. Buf if a modder wants to remove the tab-targetting, hard coded targetting rectangles, add a buddy lazing system etc, he should be able to do it. That could sort the problem with the different targetting systems of each platform.

Actualy, the one "feature" I have the most problem with in Arma 2 is the rectangles. You can't turn them off, you just tab and see right where the target is and they don't feel integral to each vehicle. If we'll able to remove them, as they are in vanilla, and add them to each helo's/plane's/tank's HUD/targetting system, it would be a very big step forwared, in my opinion.

[nodunit 397]

Why is there so much discussion on the apache? Even as far as radars go the commanche does not appear to have it's radar.

Either way if helicopters should get a fire control system upgrade then anti air will need an upgrade as well, making AAA some really serious stuff that will get you grounded.

Edited July 9, 2011 by NodUnit

[purepassion 22]

nevermind, too drunk too read things propperly :D

[David Schofield 10]

I never really was good with missiles, or anything 'dildo'ish. I'd usually have to loop around my target for about 12 minutes, then finally, once I had them lined up, just barriage the hell out of them with my entire ammuntion stock. Same worked for taking on planes and helicopters.

[dmarkwick 261]

So basically what DMarkwick says is that the simmers will always have to be at a disadvantage against people playing it in an arcade way?

Oof. No I did not basically say that.

What's the point?

What's the point of any of it? :) I think I made it clear that it would all be optional, that the server would dictate all the realism levels needed for the game. As such, I would expect only the realism-conscious servers to utilise it. To make more of a point: simulation is its own point for a lot of people. I'm sure there would be many people overjoyed if DCS Black Shark could be plugged into ArmA.

And no I don't want DLC with something that should be there in the first place.

I don't consider myself a described "sim-addict" by far but I want choppers to feel more real on harder difficulties if you know what I mean.

Wait.... you say that it should not be in the game, then you say it should be in there in the first place? I don't know that you've understood the concept that it's entirely optional, voluntary, you're only buying the extra development if you wish it. Don't wish it - don't buy it.

[subs17 9]

Yes, I thought more of pilot helmets that can be used with a cockpit link/switch in those modern/futuristic A3 aircrafts. So the player will get his data/info only if he is connected to those specific cockpit devices. Players without the proper helmet maybe can't pass through preflight checks or will have some real disadvantages flying those planes/choppers. Additionaly the pilot helmets will have an unique ID so its not possible to cross-link them eg BLUFOR helmet will not be able to "activate" OPFOR aircraft and vice versa.

Just something that people have to take care of and not just some eyecandy stuff. :)

IRL the helmets are different for Apache, KA50/52 etc. The KA50 helmet has 2 types one for night with NVGs and the other for day which has an optical sight. IRL the optical sight can lock onto ground/air targets and the pilot whilst in a hover can auto turn to target. The Apache has a helmet which has a similar sight slaved to the 30mm gun it also shows IR and is a helmet mounted display. Ingame you could have pilots having to find a helmet to fly the helicopter but its not as big a deal as the FCS.

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

Why is there so much discussion on the apache? Even as far as radars go the commanche does not appear to have it's radar.

Either way if helicopters should get a fire control system upgrade then anti air will need an upgrade as well, making AAA some really serious stuff that will get you grounded.

I'd suggest a compromise for targetting:

1/ Tab can be used to lock but TDC needs to be scrolled onto the radar return.

(Helicopters with radar)

2/ MFD view for A/G targetting viewable for both pilot and gunner showing Radar view/optical view. Pilot can see what gunner is aiming at.

3/ Opitical targetting starts with 1st slewing view onto target area, 1st depress of TAB ground stabilises image(view remains locked at that spot), from here TDC cue keys are used to slew tgt cursor onto target.(could be further detail if they added tgt box size which is adjustable, moving target mode to auto track ground targets that are moving{can be used for M1A1/2 etc}. Lase for laser guided missiles or fire for wire guided missiles with further guidance from TDC cursor for TOW/Hellfire laser guided missiles.

4/ TI WHOT/BHOT already modeled in OA.

IMO This stuffs probably already possible in OA but expanding A3 to include working MFDs in its 3d pit would be the best way to fit everything tidily ingame and be more functional than the current display.

Edited July 10, 2011 by SUBS17

[*LK1* 10]

I actually went on to list a selection of optically guided weapons, and explain that the engine as already capable of doing it . But as always, you ignore the facts and focus on trying to be right (when clearly you are not)...

you missed the point as usual. but dont worry, i guess for you is normal.

ive proposed to implement this missile guide system on the helicopters cuz it really works in this way for many missiles and various helis use this system. thx to tell me that the engine is already capable to do that since i never used a tow position or a missile of the bmp in arma 2:rolleyes:

ive just spended a few thousands of hours on bis games.

Ok, so you're saying that the AH-64A's and non-Longbod D's optically guide their missiles to target?

dont put words that i never used on my mouth.

you said apachs use radars but you clearly dont know that only the longbow variant is able to do that.

or you lase the target or you receive datas from the radar. most of the apaches used from the us army are not longbow variants.

Clearly, once again you have proven yourself to be the font of all knowledge on military subjects (WP is a "chemical" weapon/AMX-10 is "unstopable" anyone?).

once again you are exaggerating and misrepresenting my words, and if you dont do that you wouldnt have the opportunity to reply. so whats your point?

reaching 10.000 post as fast as possible? jesus...childrens should stay away from the net until the first, or better the second, pubic hair grows up.

WP is a chemical agent used as a biological weapon and the point of that old discussion was to point up that the us gov. has promoted the iraqi war to prevent saddam to use biological/chemical weapons but they used it on fallujah.

concerning the amx ive said is good enough for the role that he currently has on the french army. is used in africa. but trust me it will not being used against the aliens on the third world war, or if you prefer, in the first star war.

do you see how far is bringing us your flamming attitude

The Longbow system can (and does) detect, categorise and prioritise 128 targets, providing the pilot/gunner with the 16 "most dangerous" (assuming they mean SPAAGs and the like) to select (number 1 through 16) and engage via an MFD menu.

not needed to specify. none said the contrare :)

Seriously, do some research before trying to look smart.

see that? sometimes you should listen yourself. cuz you dont say only bullshit until you dont fall in some militaristic discussion.

seriusly back on topic or you prefer to keep fighting?

oh ive forgot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

[dm 9]

Oh sweet jesus, here we go again...

you missed the point as usual. but dont worry, i guess for you is normal.

If you made a clearer point in the first place it would be harder to "miss"...

Your first post, the poll and this entire thread is based on your desire to implement the manual guidance (which already works ingame) on EVERY weapons system, in the name of realism. Regardless of whether or not that weapon system can be manually guided or not, because it would be, and I quote:

more funny

(I also like that you refer to guided missiles as

dildos

that tickles me)

So, once again; you're suggesting manual guidance for ALL missiles ingame, in the name of realism?

ive proposed to implement this missile guide system on the helicopters cuz it really works in this way for many missiles and various helis use this system.

Yes, and those helicopters/weapons that do use it should. It should NOT be extended to systems which have no opportunity for manual guidance (i.e. "fire and forget" missiles).

Much in the same way manually guided missiles should NOT get fire and forget capability.

What is so hard to understand that fire and forget missiles should NOT have a manual guidance option just because it would be "more funny" ?

thx to tell me that the engine is already capable to do that since i never used a tow position or a missile of the bmp in arma 2:rolleyes:

ive just spended a few thousands of hours on bis games.

So if you're so well versed in the engine, why would you ask for something its already capable of?

If you're so keen on everything being realistic, why would you ask for something unrealistic?

you said apachs use radars but you clearly dont know that only the longbow variant is able to do that.

How many times in this thread have I explained how the non-Longbow Apaches worked? More times, and more accurately than you. Thats for sure. I get paid to be correct about how things work.

or you lase the target or you receive datas from the radar. most of the apaches used from the us army are not longbow variants.

That is correct. But you've veered off the point. The point is that when firing AGM-144L RADAR Hellfire, there is absolutely NO method of manually guiding it. You select the target from the FCS, you fire the missile, then that missile will hit the target (if all goes well). You cant take control of it and steer it into some troops (unless they have enough metal on them to show as a viable target to the radar - as has been the case with mortar teams in Afghanistan) just because it would be "more funny". Its just not possible. Why ask for it in the name of realism?

WP is a chemical agent used as a biological weapon and the point of that old discussion was to point up that the us gov. has promoted the iraqi war to prevent saddam to use biological/chemical weapons but they used it on fallujah.

Urgh, by that logic all high explosives are chemical weapons. WP is NOT a chemical weapon, I'll even quote your beloved wikipedia:

Chemical warfare (CW) involves using the toxic properties of chemical substances as weapons

White phosphorous burns quickly. The key word being BURNS. The gas given off by conventional explosives is toxic in a strong enough concentration (i.e. at the end of a sustained fire fight or bombing raid), does that make HE a chemical weapon?

see that? sometimes you should listen yourself. cuz you dont say only bullshit until you dont fall in some militaristic discussion.

Once again you flail around with the insults without actually providing any tangible information to back up your claims. I, on the other hand, have provided plenty of information on how things work, yet I'm the one spouting bullshit?

You still havent provided anything to back up your claim of firing TOW from Apache...

Edited July 12, 2011 by DM

[Archosaurusrev 12]

Guys...hey guys....guys......SHUT THE HEEEEEEEELL UP!

Instead of a "Hurr I iz smartur!11!!" fight (Looking at you DM.) let's discuss the topic.

The topic isn't who is right or wrong.

[rksl-rock 1301]

well almost. except for an huge difference that you obviously know, with the systems suggested you have to SPOT the enemy which is the 90% of the work in today's battlefield. and finding the enemy is also funny. like hunting.

with the tab+click system you have just to press the tab button like a fool

Serioulsly if you want to properly debate this topic stop posting confrontational flame baits interlaced with insults and inaccurate facts.

From your last few replies I think you are just showing your ignorance of real systems. Especially the Apache TADS and Longbow systems. Most targeting systems on modern gunships have a target priority system based off RWR and other sensors. Once detected by sensors an algorithm is run to determine the threat level based on type, range and threat. You don't have to "hunt" for active threats the onboard system just shows them to you once they are in range of the aircraft's defensive sensors. This is pretty much automatic. The gunner then has to select the target by cycling (tab-locking) through the available threats.

The sensors involved (radar, IR, IIR, passive or active systems) doesnt really matter in this particular argument's general terms. The issue is how the targets are made available.

The second issue in all of this is simulating weapons types/functions. Its that, that is the limiting factor. Improve the weapon simulation and options and we're on to a winner.

So improved weapons config options and most people's concerns should be sorted. And it shouldn't make it too hard for the casual/kiddie gamer and it should provide enough capability for the sim-gamer, maybe even the addicts.

• Better missile/bomb dynamics/physics
  
• Increased options for guidance. ie Wire, Laser, GPS, Topdown attack. LOAL, LOBL etc
  
• More seeker config options (ie AA only seeker so AI dont use sidewinders against tanks as they do now. Wire guided aka manual/tv guided systems)
  
• And the ability to self designate.
  

Guys...hey guys....guys......SHUT THE HEEEEEEEELL UP!

Instead of a "Hurr I iz smartur!11!!" fight (Looking at you DM.) let's discuss the topic.

The topic isn't who is right or wrong.

DM is spot on if you ask me. (Although I cant get helicopter missiles to manually guide). Considering his day job and his own interest in the subject I'd say that his understanding of the topic far exceeds that nearly all the people posting opinions in this thread.

Edited July 13, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[twisted 128]

IThe Apache has a helmet which has a similar sight slaved to the 30mm gun it also shows IR and is a helmet mounted display.

be nice to be able to slave this type of control to trackIR.

[nodunit 397]

Well not only that but the helmet monocle can interface with the nose sensors to give the pilot or gunner a better view of what they are shooting at rather than say a blank spot on the floorboard (the sensor itself being the thermal imaging device)

Commanche probably had this tech as well considering it was used on the A model and the helmets had similarities only in that HIDSS was a tad more creepy. http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/pic/00197_HIDSS_Helmet.jpg

Edited July 13, 2011 by NodUnit

[subs17 9]

be nice to be able to slave this type of control to trackIR.

That could be done easily as A2 supports trakir all thats required is to map head movement X/Y axis to the gun.

[BobcatBob 10]

I just want the current system on alll difficutlies expect one, a Simulation difficulty mode where the realism is as close as you can get it (100% real FCS for instance) on all things, if BI dont flood the game with units I think we could assumue a higher level of realism for all things.

[5LEvEN 11]

"how would you like to shoot your dildos." Has this been there at the top of the poll? I don't remember seeing that...