SAM Site Ranges

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Before we start I'd like to set some guidlines to this debate...please try and keep this on topic.  This topic is intended purely as a debate about effective weapons ranges vs gameplay issues.  NOT about individual SAM systems.

We've recently been working on a series of Air Defence addons recently and now come to the point where there is a debate about effective ranges vs gameplay.Some people use the aircraft and helicopters alot in game, almost to the point where it becomes an airwar simulation.

Surface to air missiles are a huge part of warfare in the last 40 years. Every major battle has been fought under a SAM equiped air defence umbrella since the 60's in Vietnam. So far the majority of SAM system are missing in OFP. The exception being ManPADS on both sides becuase of this we've been quietly working away on several of the widely used SAM systems: Rapier, ASPIDE, SA-2 Guidline and some others.

We'd very much like the community's view on how realistic the systems should be. Please vote on the current SAM Range survey on our site.

Cheers

Rock

[Messiah 2]

From the ranges you've placed i went for what you've descibed as 'short'... 7km is pointless in flashpoint. It would provide too an effective air cover against a player who due to the engine, can only engage from about 2k.

3-4k is a compromise between the ranges, but again, not for flashpoint. Much as DKM tunguska was a lovely addon, its use was painful seeing as it pretty mubh blew anything out of the sky that came near. Yes, the idea of AA is to provide a cover for a large area and keep aircraft out... but we're talking about gameplay here.

unless you could make them less accurate at range at 3-5k, then i'd say go for the short range.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

From the ranges you've placed i went for what you've descibed as 'short'... 7km is pointless in flashpoint. It would provide too an effective air cover against a player who due to the engine, can only engage from about 2k.

3-4k is a compromise between the ranges, but again, not for flashpoint. Much as DKM tunguska was a lovely addon, its use was painful seeing as it pretty mubh blew anything out of the sky that came near. Yes, the idea of AA is to provide a cover for a large area and keep aircraft out... but we're talking about gameplay here.

unless you could make them less accurate at range at 3-5k, then i'd say go for the short range.  

Well the reason for making this post was due to the airborne weapons on most aircraft ...due also in part to the speed of the aircraft and the settings on the weapons the AI are releasing missiles and bombs before the SAM can react to its presence.

I’ve been testing the SA2 against Footmunch’s F15E…its releasing LGBs at nearly 3500-5000 depending on altitude…similarly Sea Demon’s Mig 29 (I know its overpowered) is travelling at such speed that means its in range of Air to Ground weapons well before the SAM launches.

Add to that most of the aircraft in the game now are employing active counter measure scripts I think an at least partially realistic SAM system is possible…with some scripting assistance.

I’ve been flying Footmunch’s, Sea Demon’s and my own aircraft over it with interesting results.  3-5km range seems to be the best when aircraft are using countermeasures.  But I am playing on a Nogova size island with lots of valleys, rivers to use as cover.  It really does make a difference to the game play.  It makes certain areas off limits until cleared by either artillery, ground troops or a decent SEAD strike.

Changine the accuracy/perfomance of the missile at various ranges is already supported in the game engine anyway. But some missiles are really poor at close range and good at distance and vice versa.

I'm coming ot the conclusion that anything less than 3Km (without hiding the source) is impracticle due to the relative speed of the SAM.

[Gedis 0]

i think real SAM ranges for ofp are too big...

so maybe 3-4km, just want to say more, for more reality, you could do different radars, with different detection ranges and altitudes, just to have some undetected altitute, like 15-25m.

besides, if radar is destroyed, SAMs can't fire...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

i think real SAM ranges for ofp are too big...

so maybe 3-4km, just want to say more, for more reality, you could do different radars, with different detection ranges and altitudes, just to have some undetected altitute, like 15-25m.

besides, if radar is destroyed, SAMs can't fire...

Already done...:)  A lot of this stuff has already been developed.

I already have 6 different radar systems, 4 different SAM types...the scripts to link them are already in progress but i cant say more than that...but it wont just be a few units and it wont be a potent as the Tunguskas.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I don't think the way aircraft addons behave in OFP, or the way they really need to be limited to be playable in OFP's scale is realistic enough for Anti-Aircraft addons to be made with realistic velocities and ranges.

Jaguar was making similar enquiries about the effectiveness of his Anti-Aircraft addons (ADATS, Tracked Rapier etc.) a little while back. I suggested to him that he should have a chat with the lads working on ACES; Hardrock, Footmunch, Vektorbosen etc. since they're standardising the values of aircraft weapons, speeds and countermeasures to see what values will become typical of aircraft in future addons so that you can make AA systems are fairly compatable.

You may also like to talk to Jag himself to see what sort of values he's going for with his ADATS etc.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I don't think the way aircraft addons behave in OFP, or the way they really need to be limited to be playable in OFP's scale is realistic enough for Anti-Aircraft addons to be made with realistic velocities and ranges.

Jaguar was making similar enquiries about the effectiveness of his Anti-Aircraft addons (ADATS, Tracked Rapier etc.) a little while back. I suggested to him that he should have a chat with the lads working on ACES; Hardrock, Footmunch, Vektorbosen etc. since they're standardising the values of aircraft weapons, speeds and countermeasures to see what values will become typical of aircraft in future addons so that you can make AA systems are fairly compatable.

You may also like to talk to Jag himself to see what sort of values he's going for with his ADATS etc.

I'm actually helping Jaguar with his ADATS, Rapier etc...

Re the ACES stuff...thanks but nothing seems to be happening with it...atleast not from what ive heard publically...i will ask the question though.

But to be honest i wanted to know what the actual players thought/wanted.

[EvEnLeaSe44 0]

is this sam system going to have a controll panel, to where you can connect 2-6 sams on one computer controll ?

Or is this going to be a "lets mount the SAM" kind of system ?

I would like a controll panel to where u can connect multi-SAMs. Is this going to be in with it ?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

is this sam system going to have a controll panel, to where you can connect 2-6 sams on one computer controll ?

Or is  this going to be a "lets mount the SAM" kind of system ?

I would like a controll panel to where u can connect multi-SAMs. Is this going to be in with it ?

Ok this isnt heading in the direction i was intending. I'm not going to talk about addons.

[TeRp 1]

I'm with da12thMonkey on this.

Flashpoint is not able to simulate realistic aircraft or anti-aircraft.

On the other way, and don't get me wrong on this, I think stationary AA stations like Patriot, SAM and so on are not very usefull for playing, only for cutscenes - because of their accuracy, their range and I personally like to move around in Flashpoint, not to wait for my targets coming to me

However, I would prefer shortened range, even if not realistic but balancing the gameplay.

[the_shadow 0]

i think they´re siutable for blowing up

small SF units that go in and covertly blow them up before a larger invasion...

but other then that, yeah, just siutable for cutscenes

[Gedis 0]

but why? i prefer them for game play as well...

i found many difficultyes piloting aircraft: like doing barrel through the bridges, landing on aircraft carriers with first person view, doing some crazy tricks, flying over 2800km/h in OFP, fighting of the aircraft in air, so now, we would have another difficulty to learn over come it... it's SAMs... oh, how great they would be also in MP missions...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Ok as a result of the grumblings and negative stuff ive been hearing about SAMs in OFP I carried out a little experiment.

I've just had an IRC chat with 23 people who were loitering in my favourite OFP channel.  I explained the idea and we played the test game with both short range and med range settings.  I started a server and had an 16 player coop MP game based around the SA2 system...

Scenario...First day of War... Locate and destroy the SAM Sites, Designate for LGBs etc.

The first game lasted 42 minutes presenting the SAM system with 8 possible AI targets and 2 Player controlled units an A10 and a Chinook (both have counter measures).

The SA2 was configured to track targets at 5k and engage at 3K - we were playing on RKSL Test Island 1 with a view range of 3000 (Yes it did cause a bit of lag)

Here's a few cut and pastes from the 3-5K debrief after:

Quote[/b] ]Personally I really enjoyed it, it added a new wrinkle it felt more realistic to use the terrain to hide from the radar - MaxDog - A10 Pilot

Quote[/b] ]Top frigging game.  Loved it being forced to fly below the hill tops is ace! That missile flying by the bird scared the crap out of me- ABLE224 - Chinook Gunner

Quote[/b] ]Lot harder than i thought but really wasnt like i though it was going to be - FartMaster - Chinook Pilot

Quote[/b] ]Bit too hard for me to fly that low but really liked the feeling of building pressure when we got closer to the city, Scary seeing the missile launching at the medivac - SGTUnderpants - 1st Chinook Pilot but killed all aboard when he stuffed it into a building while avoiding the SAM later became a grunt

Quote[/b] ]Should be harder - was too easy to hit the launchers with mavericks - Weehzer - A10 Pilot game 1

Quote[/b] ]Nice realistic scenerio.  Really cool to sneak in an blow em up makes you feel that you are part of the story- Footrot - specops team leader game 1&2

2nd Round with Short Range 2k settings

Quote[/b] ]Load of CACK! Too easy to kill the missiles got 3 on the first pass with no resistance- MaxDog - A10 Pilot

Quote[/b] ]Short range is BS - lets play the other one again! Dunno what those board trols are on about gimme more! - ABLE224

Quote[/b] ]Im with Max first game was better- Snotrocket

Theres more but i think a theme is emerging

2nd round of games was a 2 vs 2 Dogfight.  RKSL Eurofighter vs Spetz Su-27 Flanker.

Air defence was:

EAST -  2x SA2 sites 6 launchers each.(total 12msls)

WEST - 2x Rapier FSC (total 16msls)

Scenerio - Each base is defended by SAMs - Each Aircraft is AA kit only plus guns.  Winner is decided by the max number of kills vs deaths.  IE if you kill everyone but die 8 times you still lose.

Quote[/b] ]F***ing L O V E it!  This is what airmission are supposed to be about!- MaxDog - Eurofighter Pilot

Quote[/b] ]It forces you down into the ground to fight this is whats we shoulda been doing all along- MuffHeinous - SU27 Pilot

Quote[/b] ]If thats what real pilots have to suffer im walking :)- MuffBollocks - SU27 Pilot

Quote[/b] ]That prox blast really screwed me over but have to say what a game - strayed too far into the enemy territory and WHAM a phone pole goes past the canopy! WHAT A FUCKING RUSH! - Stickman - Eurofighter pilot

The suggestions get bluer as time has gone on but they are still playing the 2 missions 4 hours later so i guess its a success. I think i've got enough feed back from that lot to justify continuing at the Med settings.

[Gedis 0]

wow! great! i want to try it by my self! who will be my wingman? remember, we are russian naval pilots, we are best of the best, operating from Admiral Kuznetsov, we can supress any fighter enemy can throuw to us, we fly Su-33 (Su-27 by SFM)...

oh man... if only i could try this...

don't forget what joystick is for... sad that i don't have pedals, it would be easyer to ride through the take-off/landing deck...

[-HUNTER- 1]

I wanted to post yesterday but decided to wait a day and see what happens..

Personally I would like the idea of SAM's engaging at longer ranges and for OFP even BVR. I think that the radar systems should be able to allmost view the entire map aerospace, and lock targets but only fire when within a certain range. BUUT the radar system should report the targets as soon as they come into view and radarlock.

If you then put a dude who is on your squad in the radar control room it can give you real time information about incoming aircraft. And for instance you could then sprint to your QRA waiting Fighter and scramble to intercept. You will then be airborne when the fighter or bomber comes into range of the SAM's and they will fire or not depending on your commands...

Maybee for radar stuff something like a mapview with ALL flying aircraft and then you could use IFF kinda stuff to check out the airspace. It would give you a whole new area for missions involving AAA>> EDIT, maybee not the map view, but a radarscreen kinda view, with the thing turning and such..

I would think something like 20k for radar view, and engagements at 8! With the larger sam missiles, you could then get a locked on alarm in the cockpit and then you turn on the ECM and drop chaff and flares and bail down to the floor!

[Major Gripe 0]

I wanted to post yesterday but decided to wait a day and see what happens..

Personally I would like the idea of SAM's engaging at longer ranges and for OFP even BVR. I think that the radar systems should be able to allmost view the entire map aerospace, and lock targets but only fire when within a certain range. BUUT the radar system should report the targets as soon as they come into view and radarlock.

If you then put a dude who is on your squad in the radar control room it can give you real time information about incoming aircraft. And for instance you could then sprint to your QRA waiting Fighter and scramble to intercept. You will then be airborne when the fighter or bomber comes into range of the SAM's and they will fire or not depending on your commands...

Maybee for radar stuff something like a mapview with ALL flying aircraft and then you could use IFF kinda stuff to check out the airspace. It would give you a whole new area for missions involving AAA>> EDIT, maybee not the map view, but a radarscreen kinda view, with the thing turning and such..

I would think something like 20k for radar view, and engagements at 8! With the larger sam missiles, you could then get a locked on alarm in the cockpit and then you turn on the ECM and drop chaff and flares and bail down to the floor!

I was going to write something with logical thought clearly written, instead I shall just say;

ditto.

[Footmunch 0]

Rock -

Just to let you know, when testing an aircraft, I usually use the

Lavos SA-13 for SAM, and BIS Shilka for AAA. The -13 is

perhaps a _little_ underpowered, but it can be dangerous if

proper care isn't taken.

Another setting to play with is the reload speed for the SAM,

both for single shots and for the 'magazine'. This is done nicely

in the SA-13 where, if you survive the first salvo of four

missiles, you have time to plan and execute an attack while it

reloads.

The DKM Tunguska is overpowered; the 4-unit-group is _very_

deadly: killable (with a little luck) by a human pilot, but it makes

mincemeat of AI pilots. This seems to be because of the high

speed and maneuvaring of the missiles, as well as the radar

range.

There are ACES-compatible planes in beta right now. I'd suggest

getting in direct contact with Hardrock.

[Colossus 2]

I keep voting but it won't let me..

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, this Module isn't active!

Anyway, 3-5km should fit. We don't what it to be too unfair when you are attacking with a plane.

[franze 196]

Personally, I believe when it comes to missile weapons that are designed to track aircraft, there should be no corners cut on lethality. If a aircraft is having problems with a SAM system in the area, then either a different approach or a call to a friendly unit capable of dealing with the SAM should be used. As the AI cannot fly aircraft with as much profieciency as a human, especially those that are designed to attack targets, it makes sense to design SAMs in such a way that they will provide the most challenge to human players.

I vote for realistic engagement ranges and missile hit capabilities.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

@ Colossus - Sorry about that ive been doing maintenace on the site and switch it off by accident. Its live again.

@ Footmunch - Cheers I emailed him the other day but it must be an old one because it came back undeleiverable

I had forgotten about the Lavos SA-13  But I’ve been using the Shilka ranges as a base to develop from.  I agree with you on the Tunguska - I’ve been using pretty much all of the available SAM systems in the game at the moment.  So far the feedback from the guinea pigs I’ve been using is pretty good.

Although I will say that its proving lethal to any aircraft that doesn't have chaff and flares  But the way around that is to fly low down in the mud  

@Franze - I tend to agree with you on the lethality of the actual systems...but just like in real world systems there are counter measures.  If used properly these can make a huge difference to survival rates of the aircraft.  The current config poses significant threat to a lazy pilot that expect dumb AI.  If you fly into the target area expecting to fly around with impunity then you're going to get a surprise!  If you plan ahead and make sure you have an escape route then you'll be OK.

In tests the SA-2/Fansong system has performed, i  would say, realistically.  Its not perfect - testers have said they were scared to see the missile flying passed them while they tried to evade.  I've tried it against various aircraft - head on against counter measures its not so good due to the closing speeds involved.  But from a tail shot, if the pilot is just flying straight and away there is a high percentage that he will get shot down despite counter measures due to again the closing speed and the proximity detonation.

I should also point out that in test the Launchers are only limited to a small degree to arc. About 80degrees at the moment.  This is due to the lack of a Fire control Script system (which is being developed for the Rapier FSC).  This mean that if you are detected not all the missile are fired in your direction at once.  Only the ones pointing in your direction.

For those that don’t know the typical SA-2 SAM site consists of 6 Launchers (1 missile each) controlled by a "Fansong" Fire Control Radar linked to a "Spoon Rest" Search Radar.  It takes quite some time to reload the launchers so its not likely you are going to be repeatably spammed by missiles like other OFP SAM systems.

As I said we’ve played various scenarios now with varying results.  The general consensus is that the AI is smart enough (only just) not to get itself wiped out in the first 2 seconds whilst flying but ranges in excess of 5k are pointless in most OFP maps.

So far we’ve tested on

RKSL Test Island 1

Nogova – Easy to hide using the terrain lot of fun

Tonal, - Low level flying proved essential <50m is the only way to avoid the missiles

Everon – too small

Malden – interesting finding a suitable place to setup the site

Others have looked an played on other player made islands but I haven’t been present for those.

We’ve even tested 15km ranges on Tonal and RKSL TI1 this presented an issue with reloading the launchers for gameplay sakes.  It became far to easy to destroy the sites once the launchers were spent.  The odd Shilka and AAA guns made that more difficult.  

To be honest the main benefit I’m seeing from this exercise is that people are talking about creating more realistic scenarios now.  Not just blood splatter missions where they wade in and kill everything.  But more true to life scenarios and they are asking for more realistic addons to use in them. Which in my book is only going to be good for the community in the long run.  We’re always going to have to balance gameplay vs realism but that shouldn’t exclude any weapon because its not game play friendly.

[snoops_213 74]

Why not script all of them into it. Set the default to 3-5km, and using game logic adjust script to personal likeing?

[AgentFox2 0]

I agree with the "compromise" idea of 3-5 km for longer range SAMs. Any farther and I think you enter the realm of hindering gameplay, since there is currently no simulation of threat warning systems on aircraft in OFP.

Now, if a script system were created whereby "radar-emitting" vehicles could be tagged, and then queried globally by each aircraft, you could set up a reasonable RWR type display using rotation animations and setobjecttexture, I think. This would make things a little more manageable for the player at longer ranges, and maybe even the AI, if coded right.

Even better would be some way of coding anti-radiation missiles to guide in on these "tagged" vehicles, perhaps similar to the way the Chain of Command coded their torpedoes.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I agree with the "compromise" idea of 3-5 km for longer range SAMs. Any farther and I think you enter the realm of hindering gameplay, since there is currently no simulation of threat warning systems on aircraft in OFP.

Now, if a script system were created whereby "radar-emitting" vehicles could be tagged, and then queried globally by each aircraft, you could set up a reasonable RWR type display using rotation animations and setobjecttexture, I think. This would make things a little more manageable for the player at longer ranges, and maybe even the AI, if coded right.

Even better would be some way of coding anti-radiation missiles to guide in on these "tagged" vehicles, perhaps similar to the way the Chain of Command coded their torpedoes.

Actually there is a threat warning system on pretty much all of Footmunch's aircraft. Both audio and animated warning are available.

As for Radar Emitting vehicles...its something that is being worked on...i cant say more than that but its very early days.

The same goes for Anti radiation missiles.

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]There are ACES-compatible planes in beta right now. I'd suggest

getting in direct contact with Hardrock.

It would be a good idea to extend the standard to cover every possible aspect. Landing gear, Counter measures & Radar e.t.c

It's easy enough to provide counter measures\warnings for aircraft that don't have any built into the addon, and get the AI to use them. But the problem lies with addons that do have counter measures. There are probably numerous ways of doing it, with varying degrees of success. Coming up with a balanced, generic system for everyone’s version of counter measures. Would be very complicated. How many addons actually have built in counter measures?

Quote[/b] ]As for Radar Emitting vehicles...its something that is being worked on...i cant say more than that but its very early days.

The same goes for Anti radiation missiles.

By way of a quick status report, the Fire Control System is coming along nicely. I'm just about finished on the basics. But everything is working as we had hoped And I think it's safe to say that Radar Emitting vehicles and Anti radiation missiles are now a formality, and working AWACS e.t.c a definite possibility.

[adrenaline red 0]

Personally, I think that any aircraft that you can see should be destroyed or likely not escape without damage.

Outside of visual range the probability should decrease in my opinion until a pre-determined range where they wont be effective.

I also think speed and altitude should also be factored in. Just as the U2 and Sr-71 avoided being shot down due to their speed and or altitude.

So if you are flying really low, or high, or fast, I think you should have a better chance of evading destruction.