Arma 3 Helicopters DLC Discussion (dev branch)

[deltagamer 612]

Just tested, no, they have not. The hint is a carry over from Arma 2, but they never actually added the feature to Arma 3. Though, with the Heli DLC, it would be nice to have that feature of countermeasure changing modes back.

I think the feature is in the engine for it to be used however the ArmA 3 helicopters don't utilize it, I'm sure you can set it up in the config when making helicopter mods however I haven't tried it. Don't quote me on this as I'm a bit unsure if it would work or not, maybe someone else can confirm this.

[pettka 694]

I think the feature is in the engine for it to be used however the ArmA 3 helicopters don't utilize it, I'm sure you can set it up in the config when making helicopter mods however I haven't tried it. Don't quote me on this as I'm a bit unsure if it would work or not, maybe someone else can confirm this.

You are right, the possibility to set different fire modes for countermeasures in configs exists, it just isn't utilized by the standard aerial vehicles on purpose. Modding this is as easy as it seems, or maybe even easier than it seems :icon_twisted:

[chortles 263]

@ pettka: So this is a case of "there for modders who want it, just not used by the existing vanilla helos (but a custom config for them could add them)"?

[deltagamer 612]

@pettka Thanks for the confirm :notworthy:

---------- Post added at 00:25 ---------- Previous post was at 00:19 ----------

@pettka would it be a possibility that we could see the select-able countermeasures with the vanilla helicopters some time in the future?

[pettka 694]

@pettka would it be a possibility that we could see the select-able countermeasures with the vanilla helicopters some time in the future?

It is just a matter of a design decision, as stated on the Feedback Tracker, but I don't see any change in this in the near future :icon_twisted:

@ pettka: So this is a case of "there for modders who want it, just not used by the existing vanilla helos (but a custom config for them could add them)"?

Exactly, the possibility still exists in the engine (and I think the fire mode may be even configured, just not added to the list of available fire modes), there are several reasons why vanilla content doesn't use it, but modders may add it easily :icon_twisted:

[blackpixxel 53]

it just isn't utilized by the standard aerial vehicles on purpose.

What is 'the purpose' of this?

I could only think of balancing, which in my opinion should not be part of Arma.

[roberthammer 582]

Well i guess its the same reason why the miniguns dont have more fire modes - due of "design decision" which is nice excuse btw

[Tonci87 163]

It is just a matter of a design decision, as stated on the Feedback Tracker, but I don't see any change in this in the near future :icon_twisted:

May I ask what how that design decision was established? I don´t have any problems with burst, but I really don´t get the reasoning behind it....

[blackpixxel 53]

I think it is a balancing thing. Every faction has the same Titan AA launcher (a design decision, of course), and a burst mode for flairs is requied to balance them. Why? Because the pilot can only defend himself from a very limited ammound of missiles (he can only launch his flares e.g. 8 times, then he lost all his flares).

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I think it is a balancing thing. Every faction has the same Titan AA launcher (a design decision, of course), and a burst mode for flairs is requied to balance them. Why? Because the pilot can only defend himself from a very limited ammound of missiles (he can only launch his flares e.g. 8 times, then he lost all his flares).

*Tears*, balancing... In a game like Arma. It would however be nice to see the mode at least on heavy helicopters In the DLC, since they are vastly more vulnerable. Especially when sling loading a heavy load.

[chortles 263]

*Tears*, balancing... In a game like Arma.

*coughRipvanWinklecough*

It would however be nice to see the mode at least on heavy helicopters In the DLC, since they are vastly more vulnerable. Especially when sling loading a heavy load.

Ehhh... the thing is that right now there aren't much in the way of adverse cargo consequences for risky flying other than a possible collision, so right now a Huron pilot might remain able to get away with just making sure to have clearance for said underslung cargo and otherwise just beelining it at high-speed.

[Gutsnav 13]

It is just a matter of a design decision, as stated on the Feedback Tracker, but I don't see any change in this in the near future :icon_twisted:

Damnit.

I was testing out the new flight model, and I saw a "semi" in the flare mode. I could even change it to "burst". I was going full on hallelujah and stuff, too. No offense but that's kinda a really terrible design decision. Was looking forward to that a lot.

Could you at least tell us why you are forced to spew out millions of dollars of countermeasures each time you break off from a gun run?

;(

[roshnak 41]

It looks awesome.

[the_demongod 31]

I think it is a balancing thing. Every faction has the same Titan AA launcher (a design decision, of course), and a burst mode for flairs is requied to balance them. Why? Because the pilot can only defend himself from a very limited ammound of missiles (he can only launch his flares e.g. 8 times, then he lost all his flares).

The way they did it is still an awful design decision. They just remove it entirely.

There are so many better ways they could've done it, for instance you could pop a single pair of flares but there is only a certain chance a pair of flares spoofs the missile.

You can pop as few as you like, but your likelihood of being hit increases drastically.

Popping the same number of flares as a regular burst has would have the same probability of spoofing as the current burst does.

The thing that grinds my gears is that fact that this is an entirely self-inflicted issue on their end.

They make all air vehicles have an audible missile warning, and the only AA missiles in the game are tab lock and seem to be "radar" guided (i.e. they tab lock and tell the target they are being fired upon).

If BI had kept the Arma 2 way of having missiles not have audible warning, or had no warning at all but made them weaker, it would be much more realistic and then something like single pairs would be important for popping CM as a precautionary measure while doing gun runs, etc.

The flares don't even have a Chaff particle effect for fuck's sake.

We see this in other areas too. Take CAS jets for example. They decided to make them have only one hitbox - the whole plane. This means that pilots can fly as close to the enemy as they like, or get shot as much as they want. When they're smoking and damaged, they just RTB. No adverse effects to being hit.

Because they can get very close without any problems, BI took it upon themselves to nerf their (30mm!) Gatling cannons into oblivion. You can hardly kill an APC in a single run.

This entire problem could've been solved by adding additional hitboxes to the jets. Have you guys ever played DCS: A-10? For those of you who haven't: one single 12.7mm (.50 cal) round in the right place can knock out a vital system requiring an RTB. You can fly perfectly fine. But your CDU/EGI (GPS navigation system) is knocked out, preventing you from getting accurate GPS data and prohibiting you from firing JDAMs (GPS guided bombs), or with just a few more shots you can easily lose some of your engine power (not all of it necessarily, unless it's a bad hit such as from a missile).

Sorry to get off of the topic of helicopters, but it applies to everything: you make the damage model of the jet shitty, suddenly the pilots can fly wherever the fuck they want without getting shot down and you have to nerf the cannon to make it more fair (although somehow the missiles stay as one shot-one kill on all armor. This basically means that no matter how good you are, a terrible pilot can effectively do just as much damage as you).

You make all the AA missiles tab lock fake radar guided, you have to make all the flares burst mode. It basically becomes a battle of keep-shooting-the-helicopter-until-it-runs-out-of-flares, not "get a rear-aspect shot so that he can't see the missile coming" or "fire from really far away so that his passive missile warning system can't pick up the launch"

As you said, it's blatant "balancing." Have you guys ever played battlefield? The jets are all reskinned carbon copies of each other. They turn at the exact same rate. It becomes a battle of "fly in a circle until someone gets bored." It's balancing at its worst, and that's exactly what's going on here.

Read my thread on how the radar could be vastly improved(/removed). You'll have to scroll down, it's listed as "Part 2"

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?178508-We-need-worse-weapon-systems

[roshnak 41]

You make all the AA missiles tab lock fake radar guided, you have to make all the flares burst mode. It basically becomes a battle of keep-shooting-the-helicopter-until-it-runs-out-of-flares, not "get a rear-aspect shot so that he can't see the missile coming" or "fire from really far away so that his passive missile warning system can't pick up the launch"

As you said, it's blatant "balancing."

I'm honestly not clear on how any of this is "balancing." It just seems like underdeveloped systems to me. There was no difference in how the Strelas or Iglas and Stingers behaved in Arma 2 -- they just looked different. How does only giving the stock aircraft burst mode for flares balance anything? If they were that concerned about balance, they could have just given all of the aircraft the same number of flares, which they kind of did, since most classes of aircraft have the same number of flares. If they were concerned that aircraft would have too many flares to use on single mode, they could have just given them less flares.

But, does dropping more or less flares in Arma 3 even change the likelihood of the missile being spoofed?

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I'm honestly not clear on how any of this is "balancing." It just seems like underdeveloped systems to me. There was no difference in how the Strelas or Iglas and Stingers behaved in Arma 2 -- they just looked different. How does only giving the stock aircraft burst mode for flares balance anything? If they were that concerned about balance, they could have just given all of the aircraft the same number of flares, which they kind of did, since most classes of aircraft have the same number of flares. If they were concerned that aircraft would have too many flares to use on single mode, they could have just given them less flares.

But, does dropping more or less flares in Arma 3 even change the likelihood of the missile being spoofed?

First, the Strela had a lower locking range, i think 6000 Km? Cant remember, and the Igla, superior at 9 clicks. in which i actually managed to down an SU-25 with around 8 clicks away in wasteland one time. Anyhow, Second, Pettka did say it's easy to mod the flares, being said, if someone does that, we can test that theory about likelihood out. Haven't tried it in Arma 3, would be nice to give it a shot.

[the_demongod 31]

I'm honestly not clear on how any of this is "balancing." It just seems like underdeveloped systems to me. There was no difference in how the Strelas or Iglas and Stingers behaved in Arma 2 -- they just looked different. How does only giving the stock aircraft burst mode for flares balance anything? If they were that concerned about balance, they could have just given all of the aircraft the same number of flares, which they kind of did, since most classes of aircraft have the same number of flares. If they were concerned that aircraft would have too many flares to use on single mode, they could have just given them less flares.

But, does dropping more or less flares in Arma 3 even change the likelihood of the missile being spoofed?

It is underdeveloped systems, but as a result of balancing. See my example with the CAS jets. They don't put much effort into having any of the AA weapons actually act like they would in real life (Just look at the Titan AA launcher - why on earth does it have a Javelin-style CLU?), and as a result, they are stuck with forcing the pilot to waste large amounts of flares just so that he can only evade so many missiles.

There is a difference between changing something to be a better game mechanic and blatant balancing.

Forcing pilots to lock targets continuously with their radar guided missiles (despite the fact that by then all missiles will definitely be Active Radar Homing and will not require a continuous radar illumination like this) to prevent spamming and make them think tactically before they shoot is an example of a tweak that I would consider an improved game mechanic. It switches up the generic tab lock fire and forget system and requires some actual thinking.

Forcing pilots to waste large amounts of flares just so that it is more "fair" for people with Anti Aircraft missiles is blatant balancing. And the worst part is, it's all because BI didn't want to put any effort into replicating reality.

In real life, missiles with passive guidance, such as heat seekers can not be detected by conventional means. You are not being painted by large amounts of radar which indicates missile guidance. They only receive your heat signature, and you receive nothing.

As a result, the way of detecting these missiles is typically by detecting the physical plume of smoke generated by the rocket's motor. This is good because it allows you to know when a missile is launched. It also doesn't differentiate between missiles - friend or foe.

kinda deviated from the topic though, sorry:

My point is, in real life it's not as black and white as "There is a missile coming at me" and "There is not a missile coming at me." Maybe your aircraft doesn't pick up the plume because it is at a bad angle or the missile is launched far away (and therefore the rocket's motor stops burning and there is no more trail). Maybe someone is about to fire their Igla at you as you are doing a gun run. Popping a pair of flares every few seconds would disrupt this attempt to lock on, and even if they got a lock and fired, you are continuously popping flares so you may be evading missiles you don't even know about.

That's basically my point. It's my main issue with Arma 3 (I play the game mainly for the flying), it really upsets me that they don't even try to make the weapons unique (or add more than one for that matter...), that they don't even try to simulate the way these systems actually work. That's why (if you read the thread I linked) I really wanted the radar to be a Radar Warning Receiver - it gives you far less information, only tells you where radar or laser emitting targets are (the only way an A-10 will find a simple truck is if the pilot sees it with his own eyes). It would greatly improve the system and really make skill more of a factor.

[pettka 694]

It took me just a nick of time to create a mod for that: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=315102096 - actually, it takes me longer to write this than to create the mod :icon_twisted: When I said it's simple, I meant this simple:

class CfgPatches
{
class A3_Flares_F
{
	units[]={};
	weapons[]={};
	requiredVersion=0.1;
	requiredAddons[]={"A3_Weapons_F"};
};
};

class cfgWeapons
{
class SmokeLauncher;
class CMFlareLauncher: SmokeLauncher
{
	modes[] += {Single};
};
};

As for the decision, it is based mostly on the real life use of the flares - they are fired autonomously to prevent human mistake, and are fired in burst. The same way as in the real life, Arma 3 simulates probability of spoofing the missiles, which is some 60 % per pair of flares, as far as I remember. The systems won't let the pilot use less flares than certain number required to spoof the missiles nearly every time. This mechanics is a bit harder to grab and explain, that is why we decided to leave just the burst for vanilla content :icon_twisted:

As for the silly remarks of balancing, I would call it nonsense in the thread dedicated to helicopters. There are distinctive helos for BLUFOR for each role, while OPFOR has flying tanks and poor AAF has just some transport choppers. The way we use the word "balancing" it means "ensuring that AI is able to use the technology".

[DancZer 65]

I think removing the color from the radar would be enough. The AA guy should know which helicopter is the enemy, but the air units know that based on the radar. Which is too easy way to get intel.

[Tonci87 163]

It took me just a nick of time to create a mod for that: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=315102096 - actually, it takes me longer to write this than to create the mod :icon_twisted: When I said it's simple, I meant this simple:

class CfgPatches
{
class A3_Flares_F
{
	units[]={};
	weapons[]={};
	requiredVersion=0.1;
	requiredAddons[]={"A3_Weapons_F"};
};
};

class cfgWeapons
{
class SmokeLauncher;
class CMFlareLauncher: SmokeLauncher
{
	modes[] += {Single};
};
};

As for the decision, it is based mostly on the real life use of the flares - they are fired autonomously to prevent human mistake, and are fired in burst. The same way as in the real life, Arma 3 simulates probability of spoofing the missiles, which is some 60 % per pair of flares, as far as I remember. The systems won't let the pilot use less flares than certain number required to spoof the missiles nearly every time. This mechanics is a bit harder to grab and explain, that is why we decided to leave just the burst for vanilla content :icon_twisted:

As for the silly remarks of balancing, I would call it nonsense in the thread dedicated to helicopters. There are distinctive helos for BLUFOR for each role, while OPFOR has flying tanks and poor AAF has just some transport choppers. The way we use the word "balancing" it means "ensuring that AI is able to use the technology".

Good explanation. Thx.

[the_demongod 31]

It took me just a nick of time to create a mod for that: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=315102096 - actually, it takes me longer to write this than to create the mod :icon_twisted: When I said it's simple, I meant this simple:

class CfgPatches
{
class A3_Flares_F
{
	units[]={};
	weapons[]={};
	requiredVersion=0.1;
	requiredAddons[]={"A3_Weapons_F"};
};
};

class cfgWeapons
{
class SmokeLauncher;
class CMFlareLauncher: SmokeLauncher
{
	modes[] += {Single};
};
};

As for the decision, it is based mostly on the real life use of the flares - they are fired autonomously to prevent human mistake, and are fired in burst. The same way as in the real life, Arma 3 simulates probability of spoofing the missiles, which is some 60 % per pair of flares, as far as I remember. The systems won't let the pilot use less flares than certain number required to spoof the missiles nearly every time. This mechanics is a bit harder to grab and explain, that is why we decided to leave just the burst for vanilla content :icon_twisted:

As for the silly remarks of balancing, I would call it nonsense in the thread dedicated to helicopters. There are distinctive helos for BLUFOR for each role, while OPFOR has flying tanks and poor AAF has just some transport choppers. The way we use the word "balancing" it means "ensuring that AI is able to use the technology".

Interesting, I can't wait to try it out when I get home.

I just miss having MANPADS and the uncertainty of whether or not you're about to get shot down (thinking of the Arma 2 A-10A), and miss having to do things like pop the occasional pair of flares during gun runs and such. Made it more of a skill/experience thing as opposed to just a reaction to a beeping sound.

[bigpickle 0]

The way we use the word "balancing" it means "ensuring that AI is able to use the technology".

so when ever the word "balancing" is used by bis this is what it means? and not balancing in the more commonly used sense.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Only skeptical in terms of AI, because the AI used the flares the same way they do in Arma 3 in Arma 2, via. Burst. Only players could use single fire. However, there were mods where the AI were capable of firing single shots when entering and exiting a danger zone. But ill give the new script a shot when i get the chance... Based on real life as well, in real life, when fired upon by a missile, you can see how the aircraft automatically deploys flares. But i've also seen videos of Hind's and such popping pairs a flares occasionally over Afghanistan effectively, due to the amount of MI-8's that get shot down by AA, so the Hind started using this flare technique, and it worked.

[aggressorblue 2]

Guys- what should I do?I hate that futuristic crap, but at the same time I really want to support BiS by buying their content. So if I buy DLC, that'd be another customer happy with current design direction which I hate. If I don't pay for DLC, that's one less customer happy about advanced FM. I really don't know what to do....

I suspect a reason for the futuristic setting is to dodge licensing issues with real world vehicles. They could have gone with the ToH approach, and given us 'place holders' for the MD-500 for example, but it would still feel a bit 'fake'. This isn't a complaint or anything, just a theory.

Also now the rotorlib is being opened up to mods, we (the community) can essentially create whatever we want, which I presume would also include porting the rotolib FM to A2 vehicles(?).

So, in short, yeah, I'd buy it. I'd rather a futuristic setting for A3 with helo FMs, then no A3 at all.

[chortles 263]

Also now the rotorlib is being opened up to mods, we (the community) can essentially create whatever we want, which I presume would also include porting the rotolib FM to A2 vehicles(?).

kju's written up a guide on RotorLib tweaking, while dezkit's already working on a RotorLib-compatible UH-1Y Venom!