FCS for helicopters.

[subs17 9]

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

I believe that requires the marksmanship principles in order to get a good grouping.

[Archosaurusrev 12]

@Rock. Yes DM knows what he's talking about, but this has turned into an INTURNETS FIGHT!

Really launching a hellfire is piss easy, the radar + the MFD that shows all of the data you need + the laser designator on the helo makes it EEEEEAAAAAAASEEEEEEEEEHHHHH.

Imagine wire guiding it as a pilot :D.

[dm 9]

Imagine wire guiding it as a pilot :D.

Which is what I'm arguing against. The radar hellfire has no manual guidance possibility, so why implement it in the name of realism? (Which was the initial request of this thread - enable manual guidance for ALL missiles...)

The laser hellfire tracks the laser target, which is already possible, and the mechanics for optically guiding TOW/HOT/Sagger/Spigot/Spandrel/similar are already available in the engine too.

[nodunit 397]

No manual guidance hellfires aside from laser, that is straying into battlefield territory.

[rksl-rock 1300]

@Rock. Yes DM knows what he's talking about, but this has turned into an INTURNETS FIGHT!

But it wasnt DM that started slinging the insults. All he did was try to establish the facts and correct the obvious BS errors.

Really launching a hellfire is piss easy, the radar + the MFD that shows all of the data you need + the laser designator on the helo makes it EEEEEAAAAAAASEEEEEEEEEHHHHH.

Imagine wire guiding it as a pilot :D.

Its never been possible to wire guide as a pilot in any real world system. I had 3 attempts at launching a TOW on a proper Lynx AH7 simulator about 5 years ago. None of them hit the targets and that was hovering 1500m away from a static tank. Admittedly a fully stabilised optic turret helps but its still pretty hard to do. Ingame just leaving the cursor over the intended should be good enough. Just like the TOW HMMWV.

[Daniel 0]

So in essence, the poll is missing the option:

- As they are fired in real life.

[hellfire257 3]

People are full of such bullshit lol, I think Rock is right here personally. Listen to the guys with experience, not the muppets who read Wikipedia!

[subs17 9]

But it wasnt DM that started slinging the insults. All he did was try to establish the facts and correct the obvious BS errors.

Its never been possible to wire guide as a pilot in any real world system. I had 3 attempts at launching a TOW on a proper Lynx AH7 simulator about 5 years ago. None of them hit the targets and that was hovering 1500m away from a static tank. Admittedly a fully stabilised optic turret helps but its still pretty hard to do. Ingame just leaving the cursor over the intended should be good enough. Just like the TOW HMMWV.

Did you ground stabilise the image? TOWs are quite accurate IRL I doubt you would be sitting there adjusting much once its lined up. Maybe the lynx is not as good at targetting as other gunships. What year was the sim based on?

[rksl-rock 1300]

Did you ground stabilise the image? TOWs are quite accurate IRL I doubt you would be sitting there adjusting much once its lined up. Maybe the lynx is not as good at targetting as other gunships. What year was the sim based on?

To be honest I dont really remember what we did exactly. It was in 2006. But the instructions I do remember were to "loft the missile in" to counter for drop and cable drag, to avoid trees etc in the hope the command cable wouldnt snag and snap. Then resight to allow the missile to arc down.

It seemed to be about timing it and I obviously didnt have that skill. I lost the cable once, hit a tree the 2nd time and the 3rd time they reset to an open plain and i tried again. I went long by about 20m. That was all we had time for. We had another appointment elsewhere on the camp.

It was an "old" static simulator that was due for refurbishment or scrapping. Put it this way there were no queues waiting for training. It was certainly pre 2003 spec before Lynx updates with the new optics and laser designators but the instructor said that it would no longer be used for TOW training.

[Baff1 0]

I know the idea is not exactly popular - but I'd be happy to see a modular/plugin solution to this. So you can purchase a higher-fidelity helo/tank DLC which is more tailored to simulation. Servers that run it require pilots/commanders etc to own the module, but normal infantry players would be unaffected.

I'm pretty sure that most serious players here would buy such modules, particularly if they represent unique gameplay away from the vanilla game, but can still work across MP with those who do not have it. MP clients only need to know position and ordnance firing of the vehicles in any case and that can be farmed out by the server. Proxy default models can be used to display them.

This would give BIS a reason to develop such complex simulations, which they might not otherwise be inclined to do for gameplay purposes, not everyone wishes for complex authenticity. Also, some amount of work could be shared with the BISim company, who would surely have an interest in module-based simulation of vehicles.

I like this idea a lot.

[5LEvEN 11]

I also like the idea that DMarkwick said... I really really really want realistic aerial vehicles. Basically the quality of DCS is what I want... Arma 3 WOULD appeal to more people with aircraft realism... If you want aircraft to be more on the arcade side, then why don't you buy BF2? Arma is about realism....

[*LK1* 10]

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

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?

what makes a weapon biological or chemical is not what the weapon has inside but how the weapon react with the enemy body. WP is using a CHEMICAL AGENT(not a biological jesus christ) which is the white p.

anyway in my old post(we are talking about months ago), which has nothing to do with the thread that you clearly has derealed, i refered to the weapon has chemical/biological.

anyway i told you 2 pages ago, is not necessarily to dereal the thread.

back IT.

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

correct suggestion, unfortunately to the wrong guy.

go back to page 1 and take a look at who started confrontational flame baits + blatant sarcasm ;)

edit:

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

(immature behaviour)

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?).

(blatant sarcasm)

also is a clear flamming provocation.

riedit: oh and no, im not insulting anyone according to the last and current definition of "insulting".

propablthe only mistake ive made is to feed a troll. but well, this is another thing.

From your last few replies I think you are just showing your ignorance of real systems. Especially the Apache TADS and Longbow systems.

well until you dont understand what im pointing up the onlyone whos ignorating something is not me. i give you an help:

i never said that apache's missiles(in particulary) needs the manual guide system. i said that we shoud have this launch&control system cuz we will not play only with the apache and not all the helis in this world works in the same way. the mi-28 is using a radar and is shooting his missiles pretty much like an apache. but the mi-24 nope, not all. is using a radio guided missiles which need to be constantly guided by the operator. so yes it works like a tow missile. if your targetis movingand your missile is not on the center of the target you can guide your dildo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K114_Shturm

(if you dont like this source you can find many other sites...)

dont you guys worry. you can make a mistake, we are humans ;)

so the only and the best way to simulate this SACLOS guide system(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SACLOS)is to add even at the helicopters(only at the helicopters working with this system) the ability to guide the missiles, which is an opportunity already avaible in the game, for example for the bmp-2. or you really want that each helis works as an apache. this thread was not apache oriented. but we are just discussing about the missile's guide

system to be added in game.

DM is spot on if you ask me. (Although I cant get helicopter missiles to manually guide).

no is just saying a pile of shit. and hes focus only on the apache even if we are talking about something more generical. also is putting out things not related with the thread.

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.

mmm i have many doubts about that :rolleyes:

ANYWAY PEOPLE, since i guess(at least now) that we reached the point not all the choppers use an automatic fire system and aquisition target system, how we should simulate the SACLOS procedure in the game(WHICH IS A MANUAL GUIDE SYSTEM)? any idea?

back in memories(might helps):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SACLOS

Edited July 14, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[rangerpl 13]

So just because the Mi-24 has a shitty FCS from 1973, we should force Apache pilots to guide missiles the same way?

[*LK1* 10]

dude, im saying we should add even this system, on the proper heli of course. not on the apache.

contrarialy, since this system is old and crappy, we should add a modern MFD to the mi-24? guess not.

this thread was not apache oriented. but we are just discussing about the missile's guide

system to be added in game.

Edited July 14, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[rangerpl 13]

Maybe because ArmA 3 is set in the future and upgrading Hinds with modern avionics is possible?

For example, Mi-35M

The Mi-35M is equipped with advanced avionics and night vision systems, including night vision goggles, operated at night with subdued cockpit instrument lighting; GOES-342 electro-optical system with a laser range finder, GLONASS/NAVSTAR satellite navigation system, electronic multifunction displays, onboard computer, and jam-proof communications equipment.

Source

[Daniel 0]

LeGeNDK1LLER, if you're asking how Arma3 should portray manually guided weapons, whats wrong with just using the current system of optics and mouse to guide them to target?

There was no harm in discussing Hellfires and Apaches. The topic is how missiles are guided; it's not possible to talk about all types of FCS without getting into specifics.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Daniel

[*LK1* 10]

mmm dont get me wrong, im not trying to flame im just trying to understand how good your logic could be: for example how old is the rpg-7?enugh right. but it was used even in the georgian-russian war. do you can ensure me that in the 2024 it will be COMPLETELY replaced?

maybe sounds strange but even the modern mi-28 use the saclos system.depends which variant and which missile you want to shoot of course, but is able of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M120_Ataka-V

from wiki:

"The system is carried by the Mi-28 and some Mil Mi-24 prototypes. It is also offered in vehicle (Ataka-T) and ship launched versions."

p.s.

you might disagree with wikipedia, but in this case you (looking at the pentagon advisor...) should link me a contrasting, and at the same time more credible, source.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 PM ----------

LeGeNDK1LLER, if you're asking how Arma3 should portray manually guided weapons, whats wrong with just using the current system of optics and mouse to guide them to target?

isn't correct. just this. why a mi-24 should works as an apache dude?

until now, about arma 3, we have just seen a couple of toys: a merkava, a mi-28 and a comanche. but i guess they are just waiting to show more.

i cant think of a bis game without a mi-24(which was present in all bis games)

and an apache. so im just asking more credibles FCS.

There was no harm in discussing Hellfires and Apaches. The topic is how missiles are guided; it's not possible to talk about all types of FCS without getting into specifics.

correct.

Edited July 14, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[nodunit 397]

Eh, even a small degree of variation between fire methods would be nice, as it stands the hind, kamov, cobra and longbow all acquire and attack targets the same way..any variety to delivery would be welcome.

For the record the Mi-8/17 was the hall star, not the apache or hind ;)

Edited July 14, 2011 by NodUnit

[dm 9]

what makes a weapon biological or chemical is not what the weapon has inside but how the weapon react with the enemy body. WP is using a CHEMICAL AGENT(not a biological jesus christ) which is the white p.

anyway in my old post(we are talking about months ago), which has nothing to do with the thread that you clearly has derealed, i refered to the weapon has chemical/biological.

anyway i told you 2 pages ago, is not necessarily to dereal the thread.

Well actually its entirely what is in the weapon that makes it chemical or not.

You can even read it on your beloved wikipedia.

Otherwise, white or red phosphorous would be outlawed by the chemical weapons convention, which the US is a signatory of.

Ergo, WP/RP is not a chemical weapon.

back IT.

i never said that apache's missiles(in particulary) needs the manual guide system.

Err, yes you did, here is the quote:

well i guess is another unrealistic way to shoot an hellfire

The poll also has no option for it...

i said that we shoud have this launch&control system cuz we will not play only with the apache and not all the helis in this world works in the same way. the mi-28 is using a radar and is shooting his missiles pretty much like an apache. but the mi-24 nope, not all. is using a radio guided missiles which need to be constantly guided by the operator. so yes it works like a tow missile. if your targetis movingand your missile is not on the center of the target you can guide your dildo.

Yes, I dont disagree that we should have this system (the engine is already capable of it, its just not enabled on helicopters for some reason). What I'm arguing is YOUR request that it should be on ALL missiles...

no is just saying a pile of shit. and hes focus only on the apache even if we are talking about something more generical. also is putting out things not related with the thread.

I'm focussing on the Apache because youre ignoring it. You want manual guidance on everything, even if its not realistic...

mmm i have many doubts about that :rolleyes:

Thats nice for you, but I am, and you've been wrong before so yeah...

ANYWAY PEOPLE, since i guess(at least now) that we reached the point not all the choppers use an automatic fire system and aquisition target system, how we should simulate the SACLOS procedure in the game(WHICH IS A MANUAL GUIDE SYSTEM)? any idea?

Enable the manual control that works for tanks on helicopters, and correctly configure it for those aircraft that actually use it.

Edited July 14, 2011 by DM

[*LK1* 10]

agree. there is also 2 nice conseguences by adding a realistic radio guide system(which is manual) on the proper helis:

1) is more fun than tab+clicking the mouse and touching yourself for an easykill.

2) you are forced to use the chopper with another guy cuz you cant fly and at the same time guiding your dildo. which means more cooperation between players.

oh that's remind me another horrible thing of ofp/arma/arma2: shouldn't being

disabled the manual fire?

[nodunit 397]

Removing manual fire would be a step back to a degree, I don't know if it was possible with many of the older helicopters but I do know the apache since Alpha model (gulf war) was capable of both crew using/guiding all weapons.

And today many attack helicopters have the pilot/co pilot 'redundancy'. If it could be a config option to enable then that would be the best of all worlds like DM said, if the helicopter uses it then it would be optional, if not then a simple 0 and its set. Although if they went that far then an option for a "Manual pilot" would be nice as well since that falls into the redundancy system as well.

Edited July 14, 2011 by NodUnit

[*LK1* 10]

Well actually its entirely what is in the weapon that makes it chemical or not.

nope. cuz even the he round use some chemical elements on it. so according with you an he round is a chemical weapon? dude what wrong with you.

and even if you are in truth you are contradicting yourself.

you said is not a chemical weapon and you also said is what you can find inside that makes the weapon chemical, right? you wrote it.

well according with that source WP is made by chemical elements. :bounce3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

from wiki:

"White phosphorus is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary munitions."

so according to this source WP is also used on munitions; thats might makes these munitions chemical? of course BECAUSE IS HOW SOMETHING REACT ON THE ENEMY THAT MAKES THAT WEAPON CHEMICAL. damn. even the gunpowder works and is made with a chemical process. so according with your logic the bullets are chemical weapons?

i start to feel a sort of empathic embarrassment :j:

Otherwise, white or red phosphorous would be outlawed by the chemical weapons convention, which the US is a signatory of

Ergo, WP/RP is not a chemical weapon..

:icon_ohmygod::icon_ohmygod::icon_ohmygod:

Well actually its entirely what is in the weapon that makes it chemical or not.

really right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

"White phosphorus is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus"

AND BY THE WAY it wouldnt be the first time that a western country is violating what he signed of or hes just trying an "escamotage" to flank the violation. FOR EXAMPLE: napalm was putted on the illegal weapons list after vietnam, cuz the image of childrens burned made the public opinion very sensitive on these things.right?

well do you think they dont use any kind of incendiary weapon? nope they currently use the mk77:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

main differences from the napalm:

Instead of the gasoline, polystyrene, and benzene mixture used in napalm bombs, the MK-77 uses kerosene-based fuel with a lower concentration of benzene.

probably if i die from it i wouldnt feel any big difference from napalm :rolleyes:

Yes, I dont disagree that we should have this system (the engine is already capable of it, its just not enabled on helicopters for some reason). What I'm arguing is YOUR request that it should be on ALL missiles....

dude, hours ago ive said that we should apply this system only at the choppers currently working with it. :rolleyes:

I'm focussing on the Apache because youre ignoring it. You want manual guidance on everything, even if its not realistic...

yeah right, i want a manual guide system even for 9mm. you know i like to win easily;)

Enable the manual control that works for tanks on helicopters, and correctly configure it for those aircraft that actually use it.

what im asking for....

im turning myself on "off mode" cuz i really cant deal with trolls.

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

Removing manual fire would be a step back to a degree, I don't know if it was possible with many of the older helicopters but I do know the apache since Alpha model (gulf war) was capable of both crew using/guiding all weapons.

well and since im not so arrogant and self-proclaimed pentagon expert as might someone thinks/did , i would just to asking you something(didnt know that):so technically 1 pilot it could operate the apache alone? :butbut:

Edited July 14, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[nodunit 397]

Technicly?...it's possible but certainly not recommended..since you targetted the apache itself then I'll have to get a bit more technical. The pilots station was a fire control panel since A http://www.tpub.com/content/ahapache/TM-1-1520-238-10/css/TM-1-1520-238-10_049.htm No.28

With a few switches of the knobs he can take over for anything from rockets, the cannon and even missiles, choose fire modes, sight selections and so on. In combination with the helmet monocle and viewscreen No. 3, the pilot can use the nose sensors in the same way the gunner would.

If you want to go further, a longbow equipped apache http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1174/1009203906_49a1cc7aeb.jpg could be even more possible since you would be sitting far away from the target, I'm no expert on the system, I've only seen videos demonstrating some of it's useage but the crew basicly set up no fire zones to reduce friendly fire and select a target, in that respect it's not far from the tab system.

But using weapons and piloting would be a great challenge and danger. Alternatively the controls can be swapped in between so that the co pilot can take control.

I highly doubt the apache is the only aircraft that can do this however especially with todays digitization, when cockpits are built to look almost identical.

I doubt others think of you as a self proclaimed expert, it seems there was just a bit of miss-communication that blew up.

Edited July 14, 2011 by NodUnit

[maddogx 13]

well according with that source WP is made by chemical elements. :bounce3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

from wiki:

"White phosphorus is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary munitions."

I don't think chemical element means what you think it means...

Everything in the entire fucking universe is made of chemical elements.

Edited July 14, 2011 by MadDogX

[Archosaurusrev 12]

Which is what I'm arguing against. The radar hellfire has no manual guidance possibility, so why implement it in the name of realism? (Which was the initial request of this thread - enable manual guidance for ALL missiles...)

The laser hellfire tracks the laser target, which is already possible, and the mechanics for optically guiding TOW/HOT/Sagger/Spigot/Spandrel/similar are already available in the engine too.

With that I was referring to "Holy fuck, this is hard!" not "OMG DIZ BE GUD IDEA!".