"Tunguska!!"

[Echo38 1]

If you played CTI on a server the "AI discrepancy" can be explained. On servers the AI is as per server settings, when you do a local mission your settings take effect. So if that server has harder settings on AI compared to your local installation you will see a difference.

IF you played the CTI locally on your computer it must be something in the mission.

I was host.

ArmA aircraft are also really survivable without any component damage.

That's usually true, but a Tunguska one-shot-kills me. Very rare for mere airburst damage from this weapon.

You might consider contacting your guys on the ground to take care of it from an ambush position?

As noted earlier, the big problem is from ones which I don't know about because they aren't showing up on radar. I have no way of knowing about these, because the friendly A.I. won't tell me if they see a Tunguska. Unless they happen to be a member of my own squad, which isn't going to happen, because I generally don't use combat A.I. in my own squad. They usually refuse to follow any sort of orders, get killed almost immediately without accomplishing anything, and are generally a huge waste of money. And even when I do use them, they seldom inform me of a specific unit, usually being content to holler "enemy tank" instead of telling me what kind of tank.

[sprayer_faust 0]

So, does anyone have any suggestions, either for evading & safely spotting Tunguskas, or for why there is such a discrepancy between the effectiveness of the thing in "Superpowers" and its effectiveness in a quick mission I made with the editor?

If you are playing MP CTI, which i presume you are, then the most probable explanation is:

The tunguskas are operated by other human players. If the tunguska is relatively expensive in a particular CTI mission you are playing, then a player will prefer to control it himself.

It's fun. Sit yourself in driver's seat and drive just behind the defensive line, ideally friendly armor is in front of you and the horizon is low. The armor protects the front line and you, while you protect the armor. Switch to gunner's seat and turn the engine off ;). The area is now safe from any average player manned aircraft and from experienced players unaware of you. After shooting down an experienced player, relocate asap.

[gossamersolid 155]

The problem is that missiles go way too fast and lock way too fast in this game. Their speed and characteristics should be scaled to match the size of maps in this game. Aircraft are slower than their real life counterparts in most cases, but the missiles are super fast. So when a tunguska fires, you have like 1 second to spam flares.

[Echo38 1]

If you are playing MP CTI, which i presume you are, then the most probable explanation is:

The tunguskas are operated by other human players. If the tunguska is relatively expensive in a particular CTI mission you are playing, then a player will prefer to control it himself.

No, it was a cooperative CTI with all human players on my side.

[kireta21 13]

There's one more problem with Tunguska, or more like any AAA and SPAAG, their sniper-like accuracy. In reality those systems go for saturation area with projectiles to maximaze hit chance rathers than direct fire they use in ArmA. This makes ArmA2 AAs very effective in hands of AI, but somehow less effective in hand of players, as they don't come with build-in ballistic computers.

Don't get me started on the stinger Missiles. In this game their engine burns out after only one km of flight

Wow, I didn't know MANPADs are THIS nerfed. Or maybe it's just Stinger?

The problem is that missiles go way too fast and lock way too fast in this game. Their speed and characteristics should be scaled to match the size of maps in this game. Aircraft are slower than their real life counterparts in most cases, but the missiles are super fast. So when a tunguska fires, you have like 1 second to spam flares.

Don't expect BIS to fix it, they rarely change any vanila ArmA2 content. Vikhr missiles are still so fast and manouverable they shot down jet fighters on daily basis, and Metis still use instant autolock

[Tonci87 163]

It is just the stinger. Igla and Strela are much better, more lifelike.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

Well first,tunguskas are just fine in the game they're even underpowered considering thatyou can't turn the turret without making the engine ON,second,AI tunguska rarely use missiles unless you're far from them,third the best way to kill tunguskas in ARMA using AV8B or A10 is to fly at 5km then dive to 4.5km to be able to see the square on the plane's HUD then right click on it and shoot ! otherwise tonci87 explained exactly why tungs look so powerful in the game.

For those saying that the missile is too fast,check this and judge :P

Edited July 31, 2012 by On_Sabbatical

[Tonci87 163]

I would still like a fix for the Stingers. They are completely useless against fast flying Aircraft. The engine burns out before the missile is able to reach the target.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

We both know that stingers are useless against fixed wing aircrafts even in real life let alone a flying fast one ! but they 're really good against helicopters !

[BasileyOne 10]

argument/input found invalid.

number of MANPADS systems downed notable # of fixed-wing aircraft around globe, both military, multipurpose and civilian ones.

[Tonci87 163]

The effective RL range of a Stinger is 4000m

Another Problme with Arma AA Missiles is that they are to accurate/maneuverable, well and the Aircrafts are way to slow while the AA Missiles seem to have a realistic speed.

[max power 21]

Well, the igla certainly isn't. When I was trying to get some footage for a video, I had to literally hover the helicopter still in the air and use camera tricks to make it look like it was being hit by a missile while it was moving. Hitting a moving helicopter from the side was impossible.

[BasileyOne 10]

The effective RL range of a Stinger is 4000m

Another Problme with Arma AA Missiles is that they are to accurate/maneuverable, well and the Aircrafts are way to slow while the AA Missiles seem to have a realistic speed.

its because BIS didn't put much resources[of BIS or you PC] into ballistic/dynamic simulation, until recently.

for preformance-related reasons, as im suppose.

cuz its EXTREMELY computation-hugry to do in realtime on generic CPU's, hard to code for GPU and hard to utilize between because impotent interconnect between them.

so, eventually, its remain CPU-based for some time, just as PhysX approach are, for reference.

p.s.

but i notice iNtel MIC potential on-topic.

IF corporation release version without PCI'e bottleneck ... any kind of simulations[not only military ones]will be pleased.

[Tonci87 163]

I can't see the connection between your post and the AA/Aircraft problems

[BasileyOne 10]

I can't see the connection between your post and the AA/Aircraft problems

what "problem" actually meant ?

what particular "you", from you, mentioned, implied ?

in my personally, messages, case, its simple - AA projectiles simulated/depicted/portrayed/handled/ this way and not another, for number of reasons, aside mentioned above.

BIS manpower/HR resources not unlimited and unless BIS customers was become specifically interested in improving missiles/rockets flight-dynamics simulation - not much changes happen, unless someone else try and write/contribute some hand-made alternative for Arma2/VBS2.

p.s.

"connection" usually, mean logic, [multi-D]analysis , researching, common sense in action.

while openly used meaningless/provocative statements in contrary - wasn't and wasn't good practice in general.

[kireta21 13]

We're discussing ballance vs realism issues, that can be mostly adjusted via config tweak. And you're reacting as we've just told BIS to imput ragdoll, new AI or real physic engine. Those "manpower" and "resources" is one person in a few days (and most of it testing). We could do it ourself, but we don't need it fixed in mod, but in game itself.

Edited July 31, 2012 by boota

[kotov12345 10]

do mix game and real life.There are not single war vehicle in game which works similar to real life.Every item bugged/not working properly or have fantastic(not real feature).

Tunguska one of examples and there is ticket on dev.

To fix some of bugs I'd restrict battlefield with object drawing distance first.What ever vehicles you used you should not be allow to destroy something on your own outside of it.If server VD set 4000,object vd will be 2000 so what ever m1a1 or ah64 not way you can tab and fire for targets outside of it.

To support team play it is only should be allow lock target seen/direct unrestricted view by friendly units.

Second every weapons have own specific,which need to be presented in game.

Edited July 31, 2012 by kotov12345

[Echo38 1]

I'm not sure I can agree that making something extra-extra unrealistic is a fix for the problem of something being unrealistic. BVR is the reality of most modern aerial engagements, and entirely eliminating BVR is the exact opposite of a move toward simulation.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

argument/input found invalid.

number of MANPADS systems downed notable # of fixed-wing aircraft around globe, both military, multipurpose and civilian ones.

I am surrounded by military people eachday :)

There is one case in which you can shoot a fixed wing plane with stinger at high speed : having the plane facing you (i suppose the plane is not shooting you ),flying at very low altitude and you lucky to have the lock complete when it's 500 m or less from you + a dumb pilot who will offer you these conditions.

And to be honest,most of players in ArmA don't shoot stinger properly (according to my MP experience) ... if you follow instructions above on arma trust me,you will shoot down the plane but you need two hits.

Of course,you have bigger chances against helicopters which stinger was created for.

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 PM ----------

I'm not sure I can agree that making something extra-extra unrealistic is a fix for the problem of something being unrealistic. BVR is the reality of most modern aerial engagements, and entirely eliminating BVR is the exact opposite of a move toward simulation.

BVR ... +1,on ArmA nothing from flying skills work (crank + split S ...),when you get TABBED you die and that's all :(

If you have some flying skills just keep playing DCS it's a lot better,ArmA will only push you to use exploits to fly the way you do.

Edited July 31, 2012 by On_Sabbatical

[Tonci87 163]

@Kotov did you even read the thread? The Tunguska is just fine, its basically everything else that has wrong configs.

[kotov12345 10]

@Kotov did you even read the thread? The Tunguska is just fine, its basically everything else that has wrong configs.

fine :) good.But for some reason ai gunner not launch rockets on its own and not open fire on slower flying targets like uav as well.This is bug,I'm not mention massive other things.

[franze 196]

Of course,you have bigger chances against helicopters which stinger was created for.

Minor point of contention but no, wrong. Stinger was intended to replace the very poor Redeye which in turn was intended to replace .50cal MG for point defense against the then newer, faster jets showing up. Actual range of the Stinger depends on target altitude, speed, heading, and generation of Stinger involved. An approaching aircraft from a high speed could likely be hit well beyond a listed range while an aircraft leaving at high speed and gaining altitude will significantly reduce the chances of a hit. The same is true for most missile systems regardless of the hogwash the manufacturers pump out.

The Tunguska spurred a number of programs in the west intended to counter the perceived advantages of the system. I'd say that is sufficient evidence for it to be a highly lethal mobile SAM; the problem in ArmA2 is that the tools for eliminating it from the air are limited. This leaves alternative means such as ground forces to deal with the threats prior to rolling in the air support.

[kireta21 13]

There is one case in which you can shoot a fixed wing plane with stinger at high speed : having the plane facing you (i suppose the plane is not shooting you ),flying at very low altitude and you lucky to have the lock complete when it's 500 m or less from you + a dumb pilot who will offer you these conditions.

That's because Stinger have no range to be fired under any other conditions.

IRL Stinger, and portable systems overall, when used in quick ambush, aganist jets at low altitude, are best fired once it passes. It's nearly impossible to do that in ArmA, because before Stinger finally locks-on, jet will be 700 meters away, and missile will have no range and no speed to reach it.

Tunguska don't have lock-on delay and missiles have virtually no acceleration time - with thrust above 4000 (Igla ~850 if I recall well) 9M311 missiles reach maximum speed instantly.

[On_Sabbatical 11]

tunguska missile in ArmA starts with its max speed,and yes it's a SACLOS system so delay is needed.

@Franze

Thanks for the clarification :P

[BasileyOne 10]

thats why original 9M331 was made two-stage, btw: reaction time and range requirements ;)