Jets - Sensor overhaul (Radars, IRs, Lazors, PGMs)

[snoops_213 75]

After trying out todays update, all i can say is what an awesome step in the right direction with the data link. Is there any chance of making the mk-49s missiles data linked like chortles had done with his test config? The titians dont need this since they are ir missiles, but a version with radar/data link/longer range missiles would also be a welcome thing. Then all we need is a radar and some anit radiation missiles. One thing i have noticed is when im in the mk49, radar contacts(and data link i think need to double check) are shown in the hud with white boxes, but the cheetah/tigris do not, any chance of getting that into their huds?

 

And with all this great new tech planes are really starting to struggle especially with the static/stationary vehicle not being targetable by longer range missiles, i think now would be a great time to introduce an anti radiation missile into the game. As i have previously said it should be able to take out the radar but not kill the vehicle( maybe the static ones but not armored ones). And an ECM. Ecm should "create" lots of targets that need to be identified first(maybe lock it up for a few seconds then the fake gets discarded) and the amount of targets should diminish as the jammer gets closer to the radar to simulate radar burn through. This could also create another class of sensor, homing on jam, that could be added to the ARH missiles( air to air ones, not sams). Then the problem arises on game play/balance vs reality. On this front the ECM should be in a pod form that takes up pylon space. And the number of pods caried should also determine the effectiveness of said ecm. 1 pod puts out say 5-10  fake target at max range and very quickly reduces that number the closer it gets to the radar where 4 will do say 20-25 but reduces slower the closer it gets to simulate the strenght of dedicated wild weasel platform. Man you guys really did open a can of worms with the sensor overhaul and adding jets to the game huh? Now i know that this is a shit ton more work for you and with so many dlc still to come i doubt this wil happen anytime soon, but at the very least an ARM and/or a EO version of the macer would be helpful for aircraft in the short term. 

[pawelkpl 29]

Is there any chance to choose bettween  old and new sensor system (something similar to sim/arcade flight model preset in description.ext) ? 

 

Can someone tell me how to lock targets with AG missiles in A-164 ? Enemy vehicels like ifrits are shown as a white squares on sensor, despite of locking with tab key missile does not follow target ?

 

Is there any tutorial out ?

[teabagginpeople 398]

15 minutes ago, pawelkpl said:

Is there any chance to choose bettween  old and new sensor system (something similar to sim/arcade flight model preset in description.ext) ? 

 

Can someone tell me how to lock targets with AG missiles in A-164 ? Enemy vehicels like ifrits are shown as a white squares on sensor, despite of locking with tab key missile does not follow target ?

 

Is there any tutorial out ?

not on dev branch right now. 

 

but this is working in stable. I don't know in particular what it is you are doing wrong. you could use the targeting pod to lazer it .then in your jet hud you will see it tracked and can lock.

 

if the target drops behind buildings you will lose lock if your angle is off or you wont get a kill.

 

 

[sammael 366]

Can someone confirm -?

lock on  limited by Arma engine  to 20-21km

No matter which view distance object  you set

No matter which config you use.

No matter if you set setFeatureType 2 to target

For example make new config  for all black wasp sensors to 100km

Set AMRAAM sensor to 100km

Set Macer sensors to 50km

You can lock on only at 20 km from air or ground target

 

 

 maybe  I`m wrong in my configs...but I can`t extend lock on beyond 20km

[chortles 263]

@pawelkpl The Macers are currently IR-guided only, so the target vehicle must have been warmed up (i.e. shooting a lot or engine on for six seconds or more) before the Macer can detect/track/lock onto it; for 'cold' targets you must resort to other weapons such as laser-guided bombs/missiles.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

10 hours ago, snoops_213 said:

After trying out todays update, all i can say is what an awesome step in the right direction with the data link. Is there any chance of making the mk-49s missiles data linked like chortles had done with his test config? The titians dont need this since they are ir missiles, but a version with radar/data link/longer range missiles would also be a welcome thing. Then all we need is a radar and some anit radiation missiles. One thing i have noticed is when im in the mk49, radar contacts(and data link i think need to double check) are shown in the hud with white boxes, but the cheetah/tigris do not, any chance of getting that into their huds?

 

And with all this great new tech planes are really starting to struggle especially with the static/stationary vehicle not being targetable by longer range missiles, i think now would be a great time to introduce an anti radiation missile into the game. As i have previously said it should be able to take out the radar but not kill the vehicle( maybe the static ones but not armored ones). And an ECM. Ecm should "create" lots of targets that need to be identified first(maybe lock it up for a few seconds then the fake gets discarded) and the amount of targets should diminish as the jammer gets closer to the radar to simulate radar burn through. This could also create another class of sensor, homing on jam, that could be added to the ARH missiles( air to air ones, not sams). Then the problem arises on game play/balance vs reality. On this front the ECM should be in a pod form that takes up pylon space. And the number of pods caried should also determine the effectiveness of said ecm. 1 pod puts out say 5-10  fake target at max range and very quickly reduces that number the closer it gets to the radar where 4 will do say 20-25 but reduces slower the closer it gets to simulate the strenght of dedicated wild weasel platform. Man you guys really did open a can of worms with the sensor overhaul and adding jets to the game huh? Now i know that this is a shit ton more work for you and with so many dlc still to come i doubt this wil happen anytime soon, but at the very least an ARM and/or a EO version of the macer would be helpful for aircraft in the short term. 

 

I wonder if it would be possible to do ECM in a way that basically spawns X number of fake aircraft (like ir targets from the laser designator) which then clutter the radar/sensor of any other units in the area.  This forces the player to have to rapidly swap between all the 'fake' targets until they get to the real one. 

Of course the downside to doing that is you have to turn your radar on in order to get target data which in turn makes you a massive target.

 

And like you said make it pylon based so that ECM/SEAD becomes a trade off.

[chortles 263]

@snoops_213 (All of the following numbers here assume an aircraft radarTargetSize value of 1; increase range if it > 1, decrease range if it < 1; and of course they're all subject to change.) There's quite a bit to unpack in the 29 May 2017 changes, but a TL;DR might be that the balance swung in anti-air's favor a lot, because now a Centurion can engage any aircraft within 12 km that's also within 10 km of a Praetorian or 9 km of a Cheetah/Tigris (or within shorter range/below a VTOL or UAV on the Centurion's side).

 

On paper the aforementioned air defense system radars' detect/track/lock ranges exceed those of vanilla air-to-ground missiles, laser/strobe sensors on aircraft (those on weapons might be a different story), and maybe the Neophron/Wipeout's anti-radiation sensor(s); to the best of my knowledge from the air only the DLC jets' active radars exceed those, but the datalink sensor(s) tying all of these surface-to-air missile platforms outrange those too (the datalink sensor range matches the aircraft radar warning receivers' nominal range) so these SAM platforms can all detect/track/traverse towards all vanilla aircraft even from outside of their missiles' locking ranges. The Mk49 Spartan's missiles (presumably-fictional IR-only versions of the real-life RIM-116) currently fall in between the Titan (AA) and the Cheetah/Tigris' Titan Missiles range-wise but they should all still not set off aircraft lock warnings, so imagine if you will a scenario where Centurions are engaging Praetorian-detected aircraft and while the pilots are maneuvering to evade, they have to take care to not stumble into the ranges of handheld/static Titan (AA), Spartans (dunno how much they could fire before counting as warm/hot for IR sensors), and/or radar-toggled-off Cheetahs/Tigris...

 

(Incidentally, the carrier static defenses have visualTargetSize=1.2; and the Centurion has radarTargetSize=1.2; to the Praetorian and Spartan's radarTargetSize=0.9; but somehow all three of them have irTarget=0; and irTargetSize=0; although Scalpels still seemed to work against them.)

 

@Imperator-TFD My question regarding the EW equipment talk as a pod is, how does set up EW configs so that the capability can be integral to a jet and/or specific to a pod? For compare/contrast the Gryphon's got a modeled TGP (albeit not part of the pylon system) but the Black Wasp II and Shikra have a "chin" protrusion which makes me think of the F-35 Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) and the Buzzard/Neophron/Wipeout's aren't modeled at all, yet these are all distinctly part of the vehicle config... not sure how to limit such capability conditional on a pod without scripting.

[Strike_NOR 898]

My knowledge of jamming is rather limited, but there are many different techniques when it comes to Electronic Jamming. The simplest form of jamming in ArmA would probably be repeater jamming. In real life, the jammer basically listens to incoming radar pulses, then alters the pulse frequency and also applies a doppler shift, before sending it back towards the source radar. The source radar then reads this as both incorrect speed and range. A radar being jammed by this type will have trouble guiding weapons towards the target. However, at a certain range (maybe between 1/2 to 3/4's of the radars maximum range) there should exist a feature called "Jammer burnthrough", where the radar energy overpowers the jammer energy in a way that renders the jammer ineffective. 

 

Essentially how I picture it would work in ArmA, is that a long-range SAM system would create a huge radius of "no-fly zone". A jet equipped with a radar jammer would effectively reduce that Long-range SAMs capacity enough to allow the jammer-equipped jet to get close enough to fire SEAD (Anti-Radiation) missiles. I think that to avoid the Jammer from being "Overpowered", it would only be able to conceal its own aircraft, or alternatively only jam 1 radar at a time. If 1 jammer could sufficiently conceal any friendly jet in the area, it would be too OP imho.

 

Of course, radars may have many features that are designed to combat jamming, for example frequency hopping. Jammers may also be configured to focus all energy on a single frequency, or spread the energy over a wider range of frequencies, but with less effect.

 

It is a cat and mouse game.

 

As a matter of personal opinion, I think that both jammer and targeting pods should be available in two formats: Built-in (such as the TGP for Shikra and F/A-181) or dynamic loadout variant (such as the externally mounted one on the Gryphon).

 

Dedicated chaff would also be a welcome sight to arma. Chaff would have own magazines and only spoof radars. The greater the distance from the radar, the higher the chance to break lock/spoof the radar.

This would allow addon-makers to chose between a plane that inherently has a jammer/TGP or one where it must be mounted externally. I think it adds to gameplay and variation because you can sacrifice weapon load for security (in jamming). Or sacrifice weapon load for better accuracy (Targeting pod).

 

Once mounted on the aircraft, it could be toggleable through a keybind, or action menu. "L" for laser on/off and probably Shift+C or Ctrl+C or something for countermeasure (Jammer on/off).

 

On the topic of Datalink, I'd like to see a feature called "Group Datalink". This method would greatly "de-clutter" the sensor display by only showing data-linked targets from your group. I suggest these appearing with a unique color on the sensor display, such as yellow or orange. It would be highly useful if we are getting datalink guided weapons. Just picture the following scenario:

 

A fire control radar (FCR) vehicle is set as group lead. It has a long range guidance radar.

Three launch vehicles are in the same group with the FCR vehicle.

There are a few friendly aircraft and a bunch of enemy aircraft on the map, flying about.

All friendly vehicles are on data-link.

 

As a launch vehicle, you are receiving data-linked targets from both the friendly aircraft and your FCR group lead vehicle. However, you are only interested in the targets that are close enough for you to engage. The friendly jets may detect targets well beyond your range and line-of-sight and share them with you, so it becomes difficult to distinguish which targets can be seen by your group, and which are seen by friendly jets. By having a "group data-link" it would highlight all targets detected by your lead vehicles' radar in a unique color. This signifies that you can effectively track and hit these targets.

 

A different situation would be a flight of three friendly jets. All enemies detected by any of these three jets would be highlighted in the group-datalink color. The rest of datalink targets detected by vehicles outside the group would show the standard datalink colours (green/red/white). This allows the group to better cooperate and share target information between them.

 

Just an idea :)

[Bruno Morais 0]

 

I'm having problems, many times the vehicles do not appear on the radar, even though I'm sure they're in the range of radar, air and ground vehicles (I tested it in the editor)

[Bruno Morais 0]

Another thing, what would "Target assign"?

[pawelkpl 29]

That "Jets - Sensor overhaul" is a great "feature" in Arma franchise  but for the players willing to have arcade style of gameplay the option to switch between new system and old system would be very nice. The same choice like sim/arcade model flight:

 

//(0 - default, options based; 1 forced on; 2 forced off)
forceRotorLibSimulation = 2;

 

in desciprtion.ext

 

...

[twistking 204]

After testing all the new weapons i find the engagement ranges quite high, considering the view distances i imagine most players have set up.

That's not a bad thing though, since with the 64bit.exe and general advances in computing power, higher view settings will be archivable for more and more players in the near future

 

Only on some weapons i find the range too high, escpecially on the DAGR. I'm not sure, but i would guess, that it might even be higher in arma, than in real life, since it is nothing more than a hydra rocket with a guidance kit.

Also all other unguided rockets seem to be too precise and therefore have unrealistic high practical engagment ranges. In reality you better think of them as an area effect weapon...

 

Also decreasing the range of some weapons (most of all, as mentioned the DAGR) would make the differences between some weapons more obvious. and since the range of DAGRs seems exaggerated at the moment (compared to the scalpel/hellfire f.e.), it would be good for gameplay AND realism!

 

Also, i still don't understand why the DAGR have fire&forget capability. Not only is it unrealistic, but it also waters down the difference to the scalpel/hellfire.

Has it sth. to do with AI and AIs incapability for manual guidance? Then maybe the DAGR could still lock-on (through the aircrafts sensor), but require a constant LOS from aircraft to target, since the missile would be guided by the aircraft. Don't know if this is possible with current sensor implementation though...

 

All in all, i'm still impressed with the update though. good work!!!

[twistking 204]

32 minutes ago, twistking said:

After testing all the new weapons i find the engagement ranges quite high, considering the view distances i imagine most players have set up.

That's not a bad thing though, since with the 64bit.exe and general advances in computing power, higher view settings will be archivable for more and more players in the near future

 

Only on some weapons i find the range too high, escpecially on the DAGR. I'm not sure, but i would guess, that it might even be higher in arma, than in real life, since it is nothing more than a hydra rocket with a guidance kit.

Also all other unguided rockets seem to be too precise and therefore have unrealistic high practical engagment ranges. In reality you better think of them as an area effect weapon...

 

Also decreasing the range of some weapons (most of all, as mentioned the DAGR) would make the differences between some weapons more obvious. and since the range of DAGRs seems exaggerated at the moment (compared to the scalpel/hellfire f.e.), it would be good for gameplay AND realism!

 

Also, i still don't understand why the DAGR have fire&forget capability. Not only is it unrealistic, but it also waters down the difference to the scalpel/hellfire.

Has it sth. to do with AI and AIs incapability for manual guidance? Then maybe the DAGR could still lock-on (through the aircrafts sensor), but require a constant LOS from aircraft to target, since the missile would be guided by the aircraft. Don't know if this is possible with current sensor implementation though...

 

All in all, i'm still impressed with the update though. good work!!!

 

from wikipedia on DAGR

Quote

Range from Sea Level: Min: 1.5 km Max: 5 km

 

The max of 5km might also only apply to fixed wing. Rotar wing, should be shorter. I did not do scientific testing, but i am quite sure, that in ARMA a DAGR from a hovering rotary wing near sea level, has range of more than 5km.

I know, it might be a future "DAGR 2035", but having exaggerated ranges on weapons, while most players have lower view distances seems a bit weird...

I would argue, that high range ARMA weapons should never have higher ranges than their RL counterpart, and lower ranges, if if in doubt (for example if you can't model the min-max dicrepancies better balance towards the min range than the max range).

[iratus 71]

8 hours ago, Bruno Morais said:

 

I'm having problems, many times the vehicles do not appear on the radar, even though I'm sure they're in the range of radar, air and ground vehicles (I tested it in the editor)

 

Being in range alone is not always suficent. Some targets have lower radar visibility than others, e.g. the stealth variants of the Shikra and Black Wasp II are "harder" to tetect than their non-stealth counterparts, so you have to be closer to them before you can spot them. Or another example: a CH-67 Huron will be visible from further away than a small MH-9 Hummingbird. Then there is the background: Targets have higher visibility if there's sky behind them instead of ground (better contrast).

And if you can't see anything, make sure the radar is actually turned on (radar is off per default).

[iratus 71]

5 minutes ago, twistking said:

The max of 5km might also only apply to fixed wing. Rotar wing, should be shorter. I did not to scientific testing, but i am quite sure, that a DAGR from a hovering rotary wing near sea level, has range of more than 5km.

I know, it might be a future "DAGR 2035", but having exaggerated ranges on weapons, while most players have lower view distances seems a bit weird...

I would argue, that high range ARMA weapons should never have higher ranges than their RL counterpart, and lower ranges, if if in doubt (for example if you can't model the min-max dicrepancies better balance towards the min range than the max range).

 

According to this DAGR have a maxium engagement range of 5000 m:

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Sensors

 

Most of the weapons tend to have significantly shorter ranges than their real-live counterparts/inspirations. EG:

 

ASRAAM in Arma: 6'000m  <--> AIM-132 ASRAAM: 15'000m*

BIM-9X in Arma: 5'000m <--> AIM-9X Sidewinder: 16'000m*

Macer in Arma: 6'000m <--> AGM-65 Maverick: 16'000m effective*

Scalpel in Arma 6'000m <--> AGM-114 Hellfire: 8'000m*

*: according to wikipedia.de

 

 

[twistking 204]

42 minutes ago, iratus said:

[...]

 

ok. thanks. my bad!

 

However, there is still the huge discrepancy between ideal and situational max range in RL, while ARMA ist not so much cocnerned about the fact, because it is less concerned about flight characterisctics and more about guidance and sensor lock etc.

If you fire a DAGR from a rotary wing at zero airspeed and low altitude, it will literally only have the fraction of the theoretical max range. If you check wikipedia for all kinds of guided missiles, you see there are huge differences within the max range envelope. That is - in most cases - because of the energy state at launch and aerodynamics.

I am not sure, but i would guess, that ARMA does not model that at all and i think it is not really needed for anything that isn't a true flight simulator, however if you decide not to model the energy-state / aerodynamic range parameters, you should balance for a range that sits between both of the extremes.

 

*edit* for (an extreme) example: the AGM-154 has a stated maximum operational range between 22km and 130km. This is solely down to launch parameter (in this extreme case mainly altitude).

For shorter range missiles the velocity at launch gets more relevant for obvious physical reasons.

[Bruno Morais 0]

6 hours ago, iratus said:

 

Estar no alcance sozinho nem sempre é suficente. Alguns alvos têm menor visibilidade do radar do que outros, por exemplo, as variantes sigilosas do Shikra e Black Wasp II são "mais difíceis" de detectar que as suas contrapartes não-sigilosas, então você precisa estar mais próximo deles antes de poder vê-los. Ou outro exemplo: um CH-67 Huron será visível de mais longe do que um pequeno Hummingbird MH-9. Depois, há o plano de fundo: os alvos têm maior visibilidade se houver céu atrás deles em vez de terra (melhor contraste).

E se você não consegue ver nada, verifique se o radar está ativado (o radar está desligado por padrão).

 

The strange thing is that I put an artillery in the ground (that is a giant tanke) and it only appears in the radar when I am very close, being impossible the lock. Yes, the radar is on.

[ski2060 167]

5 hours ago, Bruno Morais said:

 

The strange thing is that I put an artillery in the ground (that is a giant tanke) and it only appears in the radar when I am very close, being impossible the lock. Yes, the radar is on.

Well, it also depends on what airframe you are using with radar.  some of the Radars are Small cones in a direct forward view.  Some are Downward facing cones.

You need to look at the Sensor page, see what type of vehicle you are in and what capabilities it has regarding those sensors.
I can see ground targets up to the full 16 Km away depending on where they are situated.  Hill top locations are easier to see things on than down in valleys or next to boulders or buildings.  

[oukej 2911]

15 hours ago, twistking said:

That is - in most cases - because of the energy state at launch and aerodynamics.

I am not sure, but i would guess, that ARMA does not model that at all and i think it is not really needed for anything that isn't a true flight simulator, however if you decide not to model the energy-state / aerodynamic range parameters, you should balance for a range that sits between both of the extremes.

The initial munition speed is the carrier's speed plus the magazine's own initSpeed. Then there's a fixed time of a given thrust (we don't have boost sustain motors). Also different missiles can have different drag (when flying straight and when maneuvering), making some of them glide better after the propellant is out.

Here are two examples of missile flyout from a carrier at 0 airspeed (we can ignore altitude, let's assume sea level). Keep in mind that these do not reflect the real life inspirations and are scaled down for gameplay purposes.
Falchion

Zephyr


However lock distance is not calculated automatically from the actual engagement situation. The distance is defined in the config and in optimal situation (high speed high altitude carrier, non maneuvering target) the missiles would be able to perform well beyond it's maximum lock distance. On the other hand even now, just by flying fast enough (Shikra), it's possible to escape Zephyr at the edge of it's lock range.

[twistking 204]

5 hours ago, oukej said:

The initial munition speed is the carrier's speed plus the magazine's own initSpeed. Then there's a fixed time of a given thrust (we don't have boost sustain motors). Also different missiles can have different drag (when flying straight and when maneuvering), making some of them glide better after the propellant is out.

Here are two examples of missile flyout from a carrier at 0 airspeed (we can ignore altitude, let's assume sea level). Keep in mind that these do not reflect the real life inspirations and are scaled down for gameplay purposes.
Falchion

Zephyr


However lock distance is not calculated automatically from the actual engagement situation. The distance is defined in the config and in optimal situation (high speed high altitude carrier, non maneuvering target) the missiles would be able to perform well beyond it's maximum lock distance. On the other hand even now, just by flying fast enough (Shikra), it's possible to escape Zephyr at the edge of it's lock range.

 

Oh. thanks for the info. That's quite sophisticated indeed!!!

So, maybe get some Rpi (range probable intercept) etc. markers in place for ARMA 4 at least ;-)

 

So, i guess than it is just me, needing to buy a faster computer, to get the most out of the new systems with extended view distances...

My main "complaint" however is still valid, in that unguided rockets (tested with DAR) and the DAGR seems to have too much range, compared to the hellfire-type scalpel.

My point with the ranges was not about wanting shorter ranges in general (i think they are fine), but i wanted to suggest, that you could further decrease range of certain missiles to better balance them against each other, while still staying within the envelope of what could be considered realistic.

But all of that is of course also a little bit dependent on view distance settings. Do you guys have estimates on what settings most players run the game?

[frankfranconi 24]

I tend to agree with you on the DAGRs. While the fact that they are almost equivalent to the Scalpel and Macer in terms of range is offset somewhat by their reduced effectiveness on hard targets, it also makes up for that by the huge amount of DAGRs that you can stuff in a single pod, compared to the 3-4 Scalpels you can carry on one hardpoint.

 

And you're of course right about the view distance. I find that it has become much harder to engage ground targets with IR guided missiles from the air with the sensor overhaul (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong). This is due to the requirement for vehicles to actually be hot and the increased delay until the sensors pick it up. But while it is technically accurate and desirable for sensors to take a while to detect a target signature, I think it's problematic that (with the exception of radar) this is reliant on the player's object view distance.

I have my view distance on 10'000 and the object view distance on 2300, which has been a good balance for me. But now, attacking a vehicle with a jet and Macers for example has become almost impossible, even in ideal conditions. The main problem is that the IR sensors only get a chance to see the vehicle once it is within my object view distance of 2300. After that, they take a while to detect the target. But since the jet itself is quite fast (of course I could fly slower, but that's more dangerous), I'm way too close to the target, basically above it, before I can even lock on. In effect, this often forces me to fly circles around targets and do slow and dangerous low passes to lock and fire in time, which is definitely not a good experience.

 

I could probably raise object view distance a bit at an acceptable cost of FPS, but I think we can agree that an object view distance of 6000 is not realistic for most players. But yeah, I'd be interested to hear what others are using.

[jone_kone 158]

39 minutes ago, frankfranconi said:

I tend to agree with you on the DAGRs. While the fact that they are almost equivalent to the Scalpel and Macer in terms of range is offset somewhat by their reduced effectiveness on hard targets, it also makes up for that by the huge amount of DAGRs that you can stuff in a single pod, compared to the 3-4 Scalpels you can carry on one hardpoint.

...

 

I have my view distance on 10'000 and the object view distance on 2300, which has been a good balance for me. But now, attacking a vehicle with a jet and Macers for example has become almost impossible, even in ideal conditions. The main problem is that the IR sensors only get a chance to see the vehicle once it is within my object view distance of 2300. After that, they take a while to detect the target. But since the jet itself is quite fast (of course I could fly slower, but that's more dangerous), I'm way too close to the target, basically above it, before I can even lock on. In effect, this often forces me to fly circles around targets and do slow and dangerous low passes to lock and fire in time, which is definitely not a good experience.

 

I could probably raise object view distance a bit at an acceptable cost of FPS, but I think we can agree that an object view distance of 6000 is not realistic for most players. But yeah, I'd be interested to hear what others are using.

 

 

Noticed the same thing. Haven´t had the chance to play in a MP environment yet, but with some testing I would suspect that using Macers and trying to survive while still having a decent FPS is currently not possible. Macers lock on about 1-2 km out and then it´s usually too late (either need to brake off due to AA or you just fly right over at high speed).

 

One option I see is to use Scalpels instead and pick up the target manually in the TGP on the first pass then come in for the kill on a second pass. The lasers lock requires less time and can be changed while missile in flight.

 

 

[jerminhu 25]

Can we have an audible alarm (e.g. a beeping sound) which will be launched whenever the own plane is painted by an radar? Last night, I was shot down by an enemy jet without even noticing it on the radar when I was preoccupied with a CAS mission using TGP. It would be nice if we can be alarmed against potential threats.

[ski2060 167]

You might have been shot down by an IR missile.  In which case it's possible even with an RWR you wouldn't be notified because it won't be Radar Guided.  Or the other plane did not have it's radar on.

[gatordev 219]

3 hours ago, ski2060 said:

You might have been shot down by an IR missile.  In which case it's possible even with an RWR you wouldn't be notified because it won't be Radar Guided.  Or the other plane did not have it's radar on.

 

There should still be an audible and/or visual indication that something has been launched.  Just about every modern military aircraft has such a system nowadays.