MANPADs too powerful

[zootia 0]

Does anyone else think that the strelas/stingers are too powerful in ArmA?

1. They are dead accurate. It's almost impossible to miss once you have a lock. In RL, MANPADs have a pretty low hit rate.

2. No lock tone. You have no idea if somebody is targeting you or not. You're flying one second and PHEW! explosion the next.

3. No countermeasures. Your chopper/plane has no flares or chaffs. There is no way to evade a fired missile.

4. Long range. You get locked from very far away so you can't see the little person holding the MANPAD. You might see a smoke trailer but it's too late by then heh

I think they should at least decrease the accuracy of the MANPADs a little or add a locktone so you can haul ass outta there. At least give pilots a chance!

[oyman 0]

Maybe use a Tampax?

I think the AA launchers are good in Arma. Atleast they put the damage values kinda low so you can eject when you've been hit .

But run of the risk of getting shot in the parachute.

[frederf 0]

Does anyone else think that the strelas/stingers are too powerful in ArmA?

1. They are dead accurate. It's almost impossible to miss once you have a lock. In RL, MANPADs have a pretty low hit rate.

2. No lock tone. You have no idea if somebody is targeting you or not. You're flying one second and PHEW! explosion the next.

3. No countermeasures. Your chopper/plane has no flares or chaffs. There is no way to evade a fired missile.

4. Long range. You get locked from very far away so you can't see the little person holding the MANPAD. You might see a smoke trailer but it's too late by then heh

I think they should at least decrease the accuracy of the MANPADs a little or add a locktone so you can haul ass outta there. At least give pilots a chance!

1. The ArmA MANPAD missiles are insanely maneuverable compared to their real life cousins. A "beam" shot on a passing Su-34 should be all but a waste of a missile due to the missile losing energy and unable to turn onto the target.

2. Welcome back from BF2-land, ya noob. All the MANPADs in ArmA are passive heat-seeking. That means no lock warning is possible in real life. I suppose there might be some missile launch warning radars in a few aircraft in the world, but I don't know if any ArmA aircraft have them. Besides missile launch and missile lock warnings are worlds apart.

3. Flares would be quite cool. Evasive measures should be more effective.

4. Stinger and Strela have ranges of 7,000m+ Getting shot down at 1500m is no excuse to cry foul. There's a reason MANPADs are a serious threat to aircraft.

[Maddmatt 1]

The insane accuracy of the MANPADS in ArmA is something people have been bringing up for a while. I think it's even on the bug-tracker.

As it is, a couple AA soldiers are impossible for any aircraft to get past, even the SU34. The SU34 should be pretty damn hard to shoot down with a MANPAD. This really needs to get fixed.

Countermeasures should be in the game too. I know they can be scripted, but having them as part of the game would be so much better.

[maddogx 13]

Stingers and Strelas are indeed ridiculous in ArmA.

Even if you force them to miss by changing the flight vector, they will just make a split second 180° turn and smash into the target anyway with almost 100% certainty. They are completely overpowered and unrealistic.

The maneuvering values of those missiles definitely need to be changed. Chaff and flares would also be nice touch.

[Balschoiw 0]

Guided rockets can even make a 180° turn in the place of 2 meters. I have watched this with a guided AT rocket fired at a tank that was moving back behind a ridge. Missile flew over him, behind of him, did a 180° turn on the spot and got him from the back.

That certainly didn´t look right

[baddo 0]

heh well you know what? I was thinking about this some time ago too! And indeed I think that there is something unnatural in the way the missiles fly in ArmA...

I think the problem is that the programmers can't simulate the missiles like they behave in real life regarding laws of physics, aerodynamics and so on, as that would likely be way too much processing power consuming. So they have to cheat a little bit. Maybe the cheating goes too far in some situations.

[Balschoiw 0]

Maybe they could simply limit the turn values (maximum angle) to simulate real life a bit ?

[HamishUK 0]

Quote[/b] ]1. The ArmA MANPAD missiles are insanely maneuverable compared to their real life cousins. A "beam" shot on a passing Su-34 should be all but a waste of a missile due to the missile losing energy and unable to turn onto the target.

I agree there. They are somewhat too agile but I don't disagree on their accuracy. At low level MANPADS are very accurate and to be respected.

Quote[/b] ]2. Welcome back from BF2-land, ya noob. All the MANPADs in ArmA are passive heat-seeking. That means no lock warning is possible in real life. I suppose there might be some missile launch warning radars in a few aircraft in the world, but I don't know if any ArmA aircraft have them. Besides missile launch and missile lock warnings are worlds apart.

That is partly incorrect. The majority of Helicopters and even my RAF Jaguar was equipped with a Missile Approach Warning Indicator (not to be mistaken with the old RWR). It picks up the infra-red flare from the missiles rocket motor and provides the direction of the missiles approach on your MAWI

Quote[/b] ]3. Flares would be quite cool. Evasive measures should be more effective.

Couldn't agree more

Quote[/b] ]4. Stinger and Strela have ranges of 7,000m+ Getting shot down at 1500m is no excuse to cry foul. There's a reason MANPADs are a serious threat to aircraft.

Totally agree!

[fasad 1]

The problem of the missiles excessive manoeuvrability isn't really apparent in normal gameplay, it's more of a problem when trying to force the missile to miss using scripts. Even if you can force the missile to fly past the target, it will turn around 180 degrees in about a 10 meter radius at full speed! It's a similar effect to the guided missiles in half-life 2.

I have occasionally seen a missile behave in a similar manner in MP - it "tumbles" after missing the target, coming to a complete halt in a few meters, then flies into the back side of the target!! This effect might be caused by desync/lag though.

[rekrul 7]

Countermeasures should be in the game too.

Indeed. Whenever IAF have Apache sorties over hostile territory like South-Lebanon or Gaza they constantly spew out flares. Somewhere around 1 per second. Meaning they have more than 16.

[smellyjelly 0]

I just want to mention that if flares are added, they should be set off from the keyboard, not just the menu. I hate having to fumble around in there when trying to do something quickly.

[Maciver 0]

Does anyone else think that the strelas/stingers are too powerful in ArmA?

1. They are dead accurate. It's almost impossible to miss once you have a lock. In RL, MANPADs have a pretty low hit rate.

2. No lock tone. You have no idea if somebody is targeting you or not. You're flying one second and PHEW! explosion the next.

3. No countermeasures. Your chopper/plane has no flares or chaffs. There is no way to evade a fired missile.

4. Long range. You get locked from very far away so you can't see the little person holding the MANPAD. You might see a smoke trailer but it's too late by then heh

I think they should at least decrease the accuracy of the MANPADs a little or add a locktone so you can haul ass outta there. At least give pilots a chance!

1. I can't say about this one, i've never seen 180 degree turns and such like others are talking about. Although i have had alot of run ins with the strela's and they seem to be modeled well.

2. The only thing that would give a lock tone is the strella, discounting other aircraft of cource. And this is assuming the chopper has rwr. Some of them dont.

3. I agree, we should have these. Although this doesnt mean you can't out maneuver it.

4. The ranges in this game are small. I think what your thinking is far away isnt even close to max range for this AAA we have modeled.

Quote[/b] ]Stingers and Strelas are indeed ridiculous in ArmA.

Even if you force them to miss by changing the flight vector, they will just make a split second 180° turn and smash into the target anyway with almost 100% certainty. They are completely overpowered and unrealistic.

The maneuvering values of those missiles definitely need to be changed. Chaff and flares would also be nice touch

Like i said before i've never witnessed the missles performing strange behavior like this. But mabey i need more playtime under my belt.

With regards to the strela, you can out maneuver it. Mabey you need more practice?

[zootia 0]

Quote[/b] ]With regards to the strela, you can out maneuver it. Mabey you need more practice?

If you can out maneuver a strela in this game, you are the man. I have never seen it done before. The sidewinders/stingers/strelas all seem to be the same though.

[KJAM 0]

Most of the time, the reason a Person Launched AA Missle misses is because the person who fired it launched it at a bad angle or with bad timing.

[Arrowhead 0]

Add flares. Give pilots the chance to deploy flares when flying over enemy positions. Problem solved.

The MANPAD users would then have to find better positions where they would have the element of surprise like I'm sure they would do in real life.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]That is partly incorrect. The majority of Helicopters and even my RAF Jaguar was equipped with a Missile Approach Warning Indicator (not to be mistaken with the old RWR). It picks up the infra-red flare from the missiles rocket motor and provides the direction of the missiles approach on your MAWI

I meant that a lock warning (i.e. before the missile is launched) on the Stinger is a no-go. As far as I can tell the Strela is also 100% passive IR and should give no warning prior to launch on any RWR.

Post missile launch detection might be possible, but no pre-launch.

Quote[/b] ]I think the problem is that the programmers can't simulate the missiles like they behave in real life regarding laws of physics, aerodynamics and so on, as that would likely be way too much processing power consuming. So they have to cheat a little bit. Maybe the cheating goes too far in some situations.

This is simply not true. There is a "maneuverability" type stat in the missile simulation that could EASILY be lowered. I don't know if it's the "magic fix" but obviously if a 300m radius turn is required to hit the target and the missile is only capable of a 400m radius turn things are not going to hit. The secondary consideration besides maneuverability is that once the target leaves the "seeker cone" the lock should become lost and the missile should go straight or self-detonate. None of this "oh the target is behind me, lemme do a 180". I would imagine the seeker head can only see in a 30 to 90 degree cone.

[super64 0]

This issue has already been addressed by the community. Somewhere else in this forum you'll find the Mando Missle System. It includes a new type of Strella and Stinger with completely customizable values. They are also very visible as they streak through the air. This system also gives flares to aircraft. They are manually deployed by using the Left Shift key. And when you pop them, it looks awesome!

We use this system in the ArmA Interactive tournament. It has created a nice balance between aircraft and the deadly strella/stinger boys.

[echo1 0]

I remember when countermeasures and flares were modded into OFP. All it did was make MANPADs useless and thus broke certain missions that depended on them (eg. 4th Mission of Redhammer) If its going to be implemented, a good balance has to be enabled.

[HamishUK 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I meant that a lock warning (i.e. before the missile is launched) on the Stinger is a no-go. As far as I can tell the Strela is also 100% passive IR and should give no warning prior to launch on any RWR.

Post missile launch detection might be possible, but no pre-launch.

Sorry my bad I didn't digest your post clearly. I apologise.

No there is no pre-launch warning except for radar guided missiles and of course the Shilka AAA with it's Gun Dish Ranging Radar.

[Commando84 0]

mm would be cool with chaffs, flares , countermessaures but i hope it wont make any chpper that has them totally untouchable to stingers, strelas aa missiles. In ofp i could down blackhawks if i fired in a close enough range or used rpg instead of strela

[monty67t 0]

Flares and other counter measures should definately be included. Most coalition aircraft have a version of the ALQ-144 that will defeat most IR missiles if the aircraft is positioned correctly. Here's a video of us deploying our flares last year in Iraq.

The flares could be deployed automatically or manually. There does need to be a balance though. You can't have every aircraft untouchable and you can't have every missile shoot down every aircraft. I'm sure there's a way.

[F-16 0]

Anti Air Missiles 101:

A: IR, as already said they are passive.  Only missiles that are either guided by a radar beam (beam riders: Sparrow) or have their own radar (active radar homin: Phoenix) or a combination of both (semi-active radar homing: AIM120 AMRAAM) can be detected.  Only next generation aircraft with advanced sensors that detect the initial launch exaust plume however it can only detect the launch, it cant track or predict its target.

B: The stinger is actually pretty acurate but in Arma you can lock and hit at any angle.  In real life you only have a chance of hitting if you fire in the rear ~60 degree cone (might be 180 not completely sure) as for the SA-7...its basically a step up from throwing rocks.  Its way underpowered and and is about as guided as an RPG.  In Arma it is shown as being equal to the Stinger.

C: Actually MANPADs have a fairly impressive range.  It is not nearly infinite as in Arma but they have a good chance of hitting at the visual range of Arma.

D: Arma does need flares but that does not mean that they will help much.  Just because you fire a flare does not mean you will evade the missile (given you can detect it in the first place).  Flares simply lower the prabability of a hit.  In the case of the Stinger and Strela they are fairly efective.  Now if you want to evade an AIM-9X...good luck as your chances of evading one are about as high as suriving a headshot...ok maybe not that bad but not by much.

Also note: Arma also fails to implement that little cylidrical dysco ball looking object just behind the rotor mast on some of the US helicopters.

EDIT: Beat me to it ^

It is actually an IR jamming device.  Now if this was Implemented along with a more realistic Strela the SLA would have to be up against a bunch of friendly fire fanatics to win.

All in all it boils down to game-play just as they can implement realistic body armor which can withstand a point blank 7.26mm hit.

Any questions?

ANOTHER EDIT: In response to a a post further up the page, ive seen MUCH simpler games almost perfectly match the flight characteristics of missiles. (If you think im talking about Falcon 4.0 by my handle you're way off.)

Thirdwire!!!

[D-scythe 0]

Anti Air Missiles 101:

A: IR, as already said they are passive. Only missiles that are either guided by a radar beam (beam riders: Sparrow) or have their own radar (active radar homin: Phoenix) or a combination of both (semi-active radar homing: AIM120 AMRAAM) can be detected.

Good post, cept for this part. You got it reversed - the AIM-54 Phoenix uses a combination of SARH and active radar homing (the latter for the end-game). On the other hand, the AMRAAM guides by active radar homing (in the end-game) only - thus, it will only trip the target's RWR when it turns on its own radar several seconds before impact.

Furthermore, only the earliest versions of Sparrow were beam riders - all Sparrows from the AIM-7F on-ward (circa 1970s) are SARH.

In the case of the Stinger and Strela they are fairly efective. Now if you want to evade an AIM-9X...good luck as your chances of evading one are about as high as suriving a headshot...ok maybe not that bad but not by much.

IIRC, the latest Block II Stinger RMP missile uses an FPA-type seeker, like the AIM-9X.

[Universel 0]

If you dont vote here, it is very likely that nothing will change

http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=2481