Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this was covered before and correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Unlike IFV-6a Cheetah and ZSU-39 Tigris which are using radar guided systems, Titan AA is Infrared based system.

Since Titan is using infrared seeking missile it would be impossible for RWR to detect being painted.

It would however be possible for MAW to warn of the missile launch.

 

Since there might not be any plans to separate IR and Radar missiles: My question is could it be possible to decrease detection of man-launched missiles.

Decrease detection time and range, or make it so only launch is detected but not the missile?

Maybe this could help the balance that was in question some time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Cheetah and Tigris use Titan missiles, which are IR-guided as well. It's essentially the same idea as the Polish version of ZSU-23-4, which, in addition to guns, carries Igla missile launchers. The radar is only for gun laying and slaving the IR seeker to it.

 

Also, modern warning systems can track IR-guided missiles just like radar ones, with the exception of the fact that they can't tell what the target is (so you get a warning if your wingman is shot at).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dragon01 said:

Also, modern warning systems can track IR-guided missiles just like radar ones, with the exception of the fact that they can't tell what the target is (so you get a warning if your wingman is shot at).

 

From my field of experience, I support what you say, but tracking would require a quite cumbersome and advanced equipment.

 

It is more common to arrange UV or IR sensors on the vehicle in a way that it covers a 360 degree arc. If a missile is fired within the sensors collective field of view, the rocket motor gives off a lot of light in the IR and UV spectrum that will be detected. The system can work out which sensors can see the missile at the same time, and then give a "O'clock" bearing. Since rocket motors only burn for a few seconds, it would be almost impossible to track the missile in flight, so it is only used to warn about missiles being fired.

 

The main motivation for designing such a system is to counter MANPADS (MAN-Portable Air Defense Systems), since they are the hardest to detect.

 

Some SAM systems that fire IR-seeking missiles utilize a search and tracking radar to tell the operator the range, heading and altitude of the target. This can be helpful to the operator to determine if the missile will have enough energy to reach the target (i.e firing solution).

 

I noticed in the current build that when using the new Titan-AA, the target does not detect you until after you have fired. But using a mod launcher (RHS Strela launcher) that uses stable-branch code, as soon as I start locking an enemy helicopter, it immediately detects me and starts sending bullets my way. I assume that's because it's stull using the old sensor code, but the new radar warning is picking it up instantly. :)

 

However, having the new IR-missiles undetectable may seem "OP". Since a soldier can nearly hide in plain sight due to his small size and tiny silhouette, it is virtually only possible to detect incoming missiles by witnessing the smoke trail. Smoke trails in ARMA 3 are not exactly very visible for anti-air missiles. It is actually much easier at night since missiles give off light.

 

My suggestion to balance missile detection vs IR-seeker surprise death would be that the plane being fired upon has a missile warning system that only gives the pilot a "Missile Launch! (#) O'clock" style warning. Or that the sensor HUD flashes red in the general direction where a missile has been fired. It would be far too easy and unrealistic if the pilot could see a red "M" moving towards him on the sensor HUD.

 

But, that's just my opinion :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a missile launch warning with a direction all you need anyway, most of the time. However, since the motor is quite easy to track and speed doesn't change that much after burnout (not at MANPADS ranges anyway), it wouldn't be far-fetched to also include a speed and distance estimate. I wouldn't be surprised if real systems actually had that capability. That would literally be all you need to evade a missile. It should probably look different than pinpoint tracking of an RWR, but I don't know it's worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dragon01 said:

That would literally be all you need to evade a missile.

 

Of course, besides countermeasures, evasive actions and good reflexes :)

 

The best way to avoid getting shot down is to prepare well for the attack. One of the things I hope BIS will include as a standard is to cycle countermeasure mode to "continuous" mode. This will make the aircraft drop 1 flare every 2-3 seconds until you deactivate countermeasures again. This is a proactive way of protecting yourself from MANPADS because IR-launchers will have a harder time locking the aircraft (instead of the flares) and any in-flight missiles may be spoofed by the flares that dispense at short intervals. 

 

You would typically activate this mode when you are closing in on the target area, or dipping below MANPADS attack ceiling. This would actually balance the use of hand-held IR-seekers. It would also act as a limited resource for pilots. If you overfly target area 4-5 times, then maybe you are out of flares. 

 

I strongly dislike todays "burst" mode where one tap fires a huge volley of flares, coupled with the magic red "M" on the sensor HUD that allows you to easily time when to fire flares.

 

Such bursts are normally used if you actually KNOW you are being fired upon by something harder to spoof. It justifies spending nearly 20% of your flares in order to avoid getting shot down by a much deadlier Air-to-Air missile.

 

Modern IR-seekers have shifted from "photo-sensitive" sensors (that see the world as very pixelated IR patterns), to IR-cameras (that see high-resolution images in IR-spectrum). The more modern missiles with IR-Cameras can actually be smart enough to see geometric shapes (such as an aircraft) and distinguish that from a flare (glowing sphere). It will prioritize following the aircraft-shaped target, whereas the old missiles would follow whatever was hottest (typical MANPADS sensor).

 

If any work is being done on countermeasures I would like to see a few things:

  • Countermeasure modes (manual, burst, continuous and automatic) Manual fires 1, burst fires a salvo, continuous fires 1 every x seconds and automatic is coupled with Missile Warning System (to fire if launch is detected by onboard system).
  • Countermeasures delay sensor lock. (If a vehicle fires countermeasures, it should increase the time to lock by a small debuff - i.e if 1 flare is fired, it slows down the locking process for 1-2 seconds so you have to track target a little longer).
  • Working chaff. (If a radar is locking a target that is close to the sensors maximum range, dropping chaff may make the sensor lose lock. Also chaff should have a chance to counter Radar-seeking missiles).
  • Jammer (Optional loadout that can be toggled on/off. When on, it will give away your position, but it will seriously increase locking time, and decrease locking range of enemy radar sensors).

 

It would make sense to at least do something about the flares in my opinion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. With the Jet DLC overhauling sensors, I would call it more than appropriate to bring back the countermeasure mode change for the sake of better game design.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

If any work is being done on countermeasures I would like to see a few things:

  • Jammer (Optional loadout that can be toggled on/off. When on, it will give away your position, but it will seriously increase locking time, and decrease locking range of enemy radar sensors).

Not to forget a visual overlay on the radar display. Basically similar like a locked sector, but it masks the targets in this sector (and clearly indicates that there is jamming). Alternatively, or additionally could produce fake icons in different locations on the radar (or have icons randomly dissappear for random time periods)

here is an old explanation how some basic jamming techniques work and how it looks.

Mainly 2 techniques can be used for jamming:  masking of the screen, or deception by producing fake targets.

here you can find some more descriptions and images: http://www.radartutorial.eu (the different versions of the site can have different information and images btw)  how jammed screens can look like

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the all radar and sensors has been broken in the last update (of course, this had to happen just before the weekend). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool radars are back. Can i ask why radar range is tied to veiwdistance/drawdistance?  I can understand optical sensors tied to this but why radar? Radar was designed for this specific reason, to detect and track beyond visual range. And before the argument of its unfair to people in planes well shit thats what rwr (which doesnt seems to have this limitation) and good planning are for. Again add anti radiation missiles and/or ecm and this wouldnt be an issue. Arms shouldnt destroy the mobile site but take out its radar equipment still leaving visual tracking and if the aa site is quick enough turn its radar off and the arm looses its track( i know HARM has the ability to continue its flight path if it has been tracking long enough)  . And as for the sams themselves they need to increase their range both radar and missiles. Rwr still needs to become a nontargeting option. Set a plane at 2000m up 16km from aa site, plane spots it around the 9-10km mark and boom no more radar site(even with my vd set to 3500m down from 12k) yet aa site never even see them let alone fires. I had an armed orca (ai) taking them out with dagr from 4-5km away, will stop and hover launch missiles till dead and move on to next target staying out of the kill zone(need to re run this test as i was copilot and was locking on when the aa showed itself on rwr), but still the point is rwr is a defensive display not offensive unless ARMs are in play. The biggest problem is the fact that aa sites are just plain useless atm. They are out ranged and even with radar off they still seems to be sitting ducks as planes will somehow target the vehicle from over 8km (vd set to 12k obj draw 8500m). Also the the data link should allow for identified enemies to be handed off to other vehicles to engage without thier own radars needing to be on or at least make it  so crews become aware of a threat. This tech has been around for a while and would be great for radar sam aaa combos. Hell something like this for jets too as most now are capable of this. This wouldnt apply to ground vehicles ( maybe artillery with ai spotters, i can dream of a non scripted solution)but just markers on the map that fade out after contact is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, snoops_213 said:

Can i ask why radar range is tied to veiwdistance/drawdistance?

It shouldn't be. Is some vehicle configured this way?

Thanks for the rest of the feedback, will take a look at the AA vs. Aircraft imbalance.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current state of the sensors simulation amazes me! That's a wonderful job and a great move towards realistic simulation!

Since the targeting pods were introduced to Arma in a form of a pilot cam with a laser designator on it, are there plans to teach AI to lase the target before attacking it with the laser-guided weapons (if the target isn't a laser mark itself)? I've seen AI attacking target with GBUs during the test.

Are there any ideas about forcing the AI gunner on a 2-seated vehicle doing the same if he's ordered to attack the target with laser-guided weapons?

That would be quite interesting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, that would be great. In fact, I was thinking about ArmA's missiles recently. With dynamic loadout, I feel that there's currently not enough distinctions between ATGMs. Why take a Macer if you can take 4x Scalpels? Also, I noticed that both Titan and Scalpel can be guided manually (SACLOS), and Scalpel can also lock onto a laser... A mess, in other words.

 

So, here's an idea:
1. Macer (and whathever the CSAT equivalent is) - IR guided. Meant to be used from planes, IR guidance gives it a good range and independence from designators, but it can be spoofed by IR countermeasures. Also, it should have good damage output, stronger than other missiles.

2. Scalpel - Laser guided. Whether from the drone, from a plane or a helo, it should not lock onto anything at all, but instead go for a laser designator. Harder to use, but the laser can be used to guide it onto things that don't emit heat. 
3. Apex CSAT missile (I don't have Apex so I don't know what it's called) - beam-riding SACLOS. Basically, it goes wherever the gunner (either AI or human) is looking. For aircraft, it goes where the TGP is pointing, regardless of the laser's status. Direct LOS is needed for the missile to hit, so for AI it could be simplified to "as long as target is 'in sight' it guides". In this scheme, Kaiman would probably work better with those than with Scalpels (though as long as it gets a designator, it could use either). 
4. Titan - IR guided. That basically means no SACLOS mode, it has to have a good lock. A top-attack mode would be very useful to have on the AT version.
5. NLAW - Predictor guidance based on the recent improvements to tank FCS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dragon01 said:

Indeed, that would be great. In fact, I was thinking about ArmA's missiles recently. With dynamic loadout, I feel that there's currently not enough distinctions between ATGMs. Why take a Macer if you can take 4x Scalpels? Also, I noticed that both Titan and Scalpel can be guided manually (SACLOS), and Scalpel can also lock onto a laser... A mess, in other words.

 

So, here's an idea:
1. Macer (and whathever the CSAT equivalent is) - IR guided. Meant to be used from planes, IR guidance gives it a good range and independence from designators, but it can be spoofed by IR countermeasures. Also, it should have good damage output, stronger than other missiles.

2. Scalpel - Laser guided. Whether from the drone, from a plane or a helo, it should not lock onto anything at all, but instead go for a laser designator. Harder to use, but the laser can be used to guide it onto things that don't emit heat. 
3. Apex CSAT missile (I don't have Apex so I don't know what it's called) - beam-riding SACLOS. Basically, it goes wherever the gunner (either AI or human) is looking. Direct LOS is needed for the missile to hit, so for AI it could be simplified to "as long as target is 'in sight' it guides". In this scheme, Kaiman would probably work better with those than with Scalpels (though as long as it gets a designator, it could use either). 
4. Titan - IR guided. That basically means no SACLOS mode, it has to have a good lock. A top-attack mode would be very useful to have on the AT version.
5. NLAW - Predictor guidance based on the recent improvements to tank FCS.

The issue we face is that atm it's too late for a clean up or major changes. What if someone relied on a particular guidance in one of these weapons?
We've got some plans how to tackle it but we'll keep them under the hood for now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rush. I'd just love it if the missiles started making sense. :) It doesn't have to be in Jets, seeing as the biggest changes would come to helicopter weapons anyway. In fact, large aircraft weapons are pretty much fine as-is.

 

TBH, I don't think that the missiles on the CSAT Apex drone are "relied on" by anyone (assuming there even exists a difference from a regular Scalpel), and with dynamic loadout they could be swapped for Scalpels if needed. Macer and Titan don't change "in spirit" (why does the Titan have SACLOS in first place anyway?), so the biggest thing, I believe, would be the loss of IR guidance for Scalpel. Which you don't need to do, really. With Dynamic Loadout, you could even make two versions of Scalpel, one IR and one laser-guided (as with Hellfire). Or simply make Scalpel a high-tech "dual mode" missile which has both an IR and laser seeker. I'd just prefer it to use the laser for variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oukej said:

The issue we face is that atm it's too late for a clean up or major changes. What if someone relied on a particular guidance in one of these weapons?
We've got some plans how to tackle it but we'll keep them under the hood for now.

 

couldn't you just update the classes to a newer version and leave the old classes available somehow, so that they could still be accesed from legacy scenarios/mods, while new scenarios/mods would always default to the recent version?

isn't that industry standard for dealing with these issues? (not a rhethorical question, i really don't know to, be honest!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dragon01 said:

No rush. I'd just love it if the missiles started making sense. :) It doesn't have to be in Jets, seeing as the biggest changes would come to helicopter weapons anyway. In fact, large aircraft weapons are pretty much fine as-is.

 

TBH, I don't think that the missiles on the CSAT Apex drone are "relied on" by anyone (assuming there even exists a difference from a regular Scalpel), and with dynamic loadout they could be swapped for Scalpels if needed. Macer and Titan don't change "in spirit" (why does the Titan have SACLOS in first place anyway?), so the biggest thing, I believe, would be the loss of IR guidance for Scalpel. Which you don't need to do, really. With Dynamic Loadout, you could even make two versions of Scalpel, one IR and one laser-guided (as with Hellfire). Or simply make Scalpel a high-tech "dual mode" missile which has both an IR and laser seeker. I'd just prefer it to use the laser for variety.

Helicopter weapons need an upgrade for sure. A ghosthawk DAP would be splendid. The jets are better with the development of dynamic loadout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too late. Firewall already made a more than splendid DAP ghosthaek i believe, and I'm pretty sure BI couldn't top that. However I'm more interested In seeing what the new Fighters are looking like, but for now, I'll ask if there are plans to have a TGP in the Loudout for jets that don't already have one modeled, and if so, would it be possible to prevent one from using a TGP if they don't have one equipped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, oukej said:

It shouldn't be. Is some vehicle configured this way?

Thanks for the rest of the feedback, will take a look at the AA vs. Aircraft imbalance.

I dont think they are configured that way, so much as it maybe all in my head (I am testing this with VD12k obj 8.5k), when i get some more free time i will test this some more with smaller draw distances. Question is what is the avg view/draw distance are people using?  Thank you for looking into the imbalance. I dont mind an imbalance if it falls in the realm of "realism", but what they are doing atm isn't, and you WILL incur the wrath of PvP type that will cry bloody murder over it :)

 

17 hours ago, oukej said:

The issue we face is that atm it's too late for a clean up or major changes. What if someone relied on a particular guidance in one of these weapons?
We've got some plans how to tackle it but we'll keep them under the hood for now.

I don't believe it is to late for a clean up or even major changes, are not already doing just that with the sensor overhaul? And what if someone relied on the magic radar? I think that you might be surprised  by the response if you did this. That is one of the  big problems with progress! And while I fully understand the concerns is it not better the fix up/clean up improve and diversify than leave things the way they are because someone? As dragon01 is pointing out, there is a distinct  lack of variety in vehicle weapons. Prime example is the AA. They have different chassis's  and that is it. everthing else is the same even the name of the damn weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that the issue is mission backwards compatibility...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7.3.2017 at 8:00 PM, oukej said:

The issue we face is that atm it's too late for a clean up or major changes. What if someone relied on a particular guidance in one of these weapons?
We've got some plans how to tackle it but we'll keep them under the hood for now.

Personally i find it very bad practice to use specific vanilla classes as parent for something that is supposed to be unique and is designed to behave in a special (fixed manner).  The vanilla weapons are not base classes and have changed several times over the lifecycle of arma in many different aspects. If one uses them as parent class, then i would expect that it is specifically intended for the modded weapon to behave "like the vanilla counterpart", making it "evolve" with arma improvements automatically, as opposed to the vanilla weapo config state it was at some point.

Other modders should have figured out by now that a few things here and there are subject to change in Arma's lifecycle.

I understand the need to prevent breaking all mods or making changes willy nilly, but changing the guidance mode together with the sensor overhaul seems like a small things, when it improves the gameplay of the base game. Weapons (properly) inheriting from vanilla ones will keep working, just with different lock on style - which makes them consistent to vanilla weapons, which can be even inteded by authors. If this was not intended by the author he shouldnt have inherited from a specific vanilla weapon and not repeat the config properties he definitely wants in there.

 

In terms of mission compatibility i dont really see the issue. Guided missiles stay guided missiles, rockets stay rockets. Missiles that require laser lock-on can be supplemented with SACLOS functionality (imaginary designating laser mounted on board of vehicle) to prevent the issue of not having a designated laser target in a mission that wouldnt have required one previously. Other lockons (radar/ Heat)  shouldnt really be affected. Vehicles had static loadouts previously, so making the weapons reverse compatible doesnt seem a big of an issue. As far as handheld launchers are concerned, i dont really see an issue why it wouldnt be backwards compatible. RPG stays RPG; guided launchers (in whatever form) stay guided.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. Also, with the sensors overhaul going in full steam, guidance systems will endure some changes anyway, since the guidance types will work differently. Sensors Overhaul still hasn't been released on the main branch, so this means that there's still time to make changes.

 

Players will adapt and the modders will have to update, but both will have to do so when the overhaul comes out, anyway. Because of this, now is a good time to do that. I strongly suggest pushing the guidance overhaul forward in the pipeline, manpower permitting, of course.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be nice if we have simple targeting pod camera overlay pic in 1x zoom mode

815a0649d6fbt.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be great, along with (unbound by default) dedicated axes for TGP slew. Some people have HOTAS sets which support a "thumbstick" on the throttle or a trackball on the main stick, both of which provide two extra axes which would be useful (and indeed, the thumbstick is used for that in real planes) for moving the TGP view. They could also control the view when in TGP mode, or the turret when in a vehicle. I want to separate this from the mouse bindings because then it would be possible to, for example, use the mouse in a freelook mode or for steering the plane, with thumbstick still controlling the turret/TGP.

 

If MFDs got some more love, this feature could also be used as an alternative to locking onto targets using "T" and scrolling through them. Instead, a cursor on the radar MFD would be used, which one could move over the icon of the intended target and press the "Lock TGP" button (a logical choice, since TGP wouldn't be controlled at the same time as radar) to lock it. That's more or less how it works in the Viper.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what you are basically asking for is a "driver turret" - so that the driver/pilot can operate and fire a turret but at the same time controll the vehicle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only for the planes, though. On other vehicles, weapon control would still be restricted to the gunner. He'd just be able to look around while not scoped in, but still able to slew the gun. This could be used for giving the vehicle's driver control of the turret, though, in a mod where it'd make sense.

 

Since those would be optional controls, they should not influence actual vehicle capabilities too much. It'd be mostly a convenience for advanced joystick users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×