Aa rockets vs ground

[MaxRiga 0]

cmon, guys

it's clear like 2+2=4 that anti air rockets are against air and anti ground rockets are vs ground. I can understand why it's been turned off for AmrA so the kid on Xbox could play as well as any user below 12 y.o. on PC. But once ArmA is not Battlefield series and it presents some realism there should be such option for the rockets like air missiles vs air and ground missiles vs ground only.

[hailstorm 4]

can i just ask why the conversation has gone so far off-topic? sure, it's still talking about MANPADS, but why are we now talking about treaties and real applications and how-it-doesnt-happen-like-this...

the OP question was pretty simple. can it be changed? not many people have adressed that - it seems we are now talking about real-life specs and "does-it-happen-in-reality syndrome" and nothing to do with programming/scriptwriting.

the answer to the question goes like this: the engine was designed for anti-ground missiles to home on ground targets. that's why you see crazily short turning circles and horribly insane acceleration, etc. AA missiles in this game are sort of like a addemdum to AG missiles; there is a small config that defines wether a chosen missile launcher can (in addition) lock on air targets. this in effect sorts missiles into two classifications: ones than can hit ground, and ones that are omi-lockable. there is no 'pure' anti-air missile in this engine, and no simple config change to make it that way. yes, a script could probably be written, but odds are it'd have to be a bit complcated to do so (i've got no idea about scripting, so i don't know just how extensive it'd need to be) or maybe an actual missile addon could be created that does this. but that's up to others to do.

[max power 21]

cmon, guys

it's clear like 2+2=4 that anti air rockets are against air and anti ground rockets are vs ground. I can understand why it's been turned off for AmrA so the kid on Xbox could play as well as any user below 12 y.o. on PC. But once ArmA is not Battlefield series and it presents some realism there should be such option for the rockets like air missiles vs air and ground missiles vs ground only.

It's also quite plain that heat seeking missiles seek heat, laser seeking missiles seek lasers, and SACLOS missiles go to what you are pointing at, regardless of what it is. If there is a sufficiently clear IR signature emanating from a ground vehicle for a lock, then the IR seeking missile will seek it. The question is whether or not the IR signature would be sufficiently clear. There is no such artificial class of 'air' vs. 'ground', only missiles with different capabilities for seeking, maneuvering, and damaging.

[subs17 9]

Now why would someone waste an expensive IR missile on a tank that is not powerful enough to damage when they could just as easily use a proper anti-armour missile? I doubt it would do much against chobham or reactive armour and I doubt it would lock onto a truck or car as they produce very little heat compared to helicopter. BTW for those thinking in legal terms the Stinger comes with idiot proof instructions on it so anyone could pick one up and use it so long as they can read or understand the instructions/pictures.

Stinger $38000 US each

M136 $1480.64

RPG7 $800-1000 (depending on country)

And just so were all clear on how the thing works heres my idiots guide for Stingers .

1/ You spot the aircraft

2/ Aim missile at aircraft and push IFF challenge switch

(tgt interrogated mode 3,4)note if you have the IFF thingy and batterys.

3/ Push safety which activates the coolling unit

4/ When sufficient heat is detected by the missile tone push uncage and hold until steady tone is heard.

5/ Lead tgt hold uncage and press fire.

And yeah I found this with google and BTW no reference for shooting vehicles.

[max power 21]

Why you would do it isn't the issue. It's whether or not it's possible... the rest the player can decide, unless there is some really large gameplay reason to not allow it.

[subs17 9]

Why you would do it isn't the issue.  It's whether or not it's possible... the rest the player can decide, unless there is some really large gameplay reason to not allow it.

It takes away realism if you can shoot tanks with SAMs and AAMs use the right tools for the job and leave the ACECOMBAT gameplay for the consoles.

[frederf 0]

Why you would do it isn't the issue. It's whether or not it's possible... the rest the player can decide, unless there is some really large gameplay reason to not allow it.

It takes away realism if you can shoot tanks with SAMs and AAMs use the right tools for the job and leave the ACECOMBAT gameplay for the consoles.

Heck yeah.

[max power 21]

Why you would do it isn't the issue.  It's whether or not it's possible... the rest the player can decide, unless there is some really large gameplay reason to not allow it.

It takes away realism if you can shoot tanks with SAMs and AAMs use the right tools for the job and leave the ACECOMBAT gameplay for the consoles.

Having the computer or the dev team make decisions for you takes adds to realism?  Really.

As for AIMs and SAMs, I think we're talking about MANPADs.  It seems reasonable that it's likely not possible to lock radar guided SAMs and any AIMs on ground targets... noone has provided any evidence that says that stingers can't lock to heat signatures that are close to the ground as of yet.

According to wikipedia, the stinger missile system is unlikely to lock on to aircraft below 180 meters.  If that is true, then it shouldn't lock on to anything below that altitude, including helicopters, and the fact that it can is just as much an affront to realism as being able to lock onto ground targets.

[subs17 9]

There are rumours of F-15s locking up ground vehicles with Aim7s which is a semi active radar homing missile but as of yet no real evidence of the incident. As for Stingers yeah its that ground clutter thing I mentioned but then it all depends on the version of the missile as the latest Manpads can probably lock onto an aircraft at any aspect. The way I see it if the missile is uncaged and not locked onto anything it would most likely either not fire as there is no tone or probably fly off on its own mission IRL. So there is no evidence as of yet that a Stinger can be used against vehicles so its better to keep things realistic and not allow it. And keep the AI using just RPGs/M136s instead of Stingers for vehicles. As for the Dev team well they seem to be doing things relatively well as far as realism is concerned in most aspects of Arma and OFP. They would most likely only model stuff that they have data to back it up in which case Stinger vs vehicle 0 data, 0 incidents so no point. Though next time I get to play with a SAM or Manpad I will definately test your theory Plantiff and see if I get a tone.

[max power 21]

Though next time I get to play with a SAM or Manpad I will definately test your theory Plantiff and see if I get a tone.

If you're not kidding, I certainly would like to see the result. It would be interesting!

[MaxRiga 0]

can i just ask why the conversation has gone so far off-topic? sure, it's still talking about MANPADS, but why are we now talking about treaties and real applications and how-it-doesnt-happen-like-this...

the OP question was pretty simple. can it be changed? not many people have adressed that - it seems we are now talking about real-life specs and "does-it-happen-in-reality syndrome" and nothing to do with programming/scriptwriting.

the answer to the question goes like this: the engine was designed for anti-ground missiles to home on ground targets. that's why you see crazily short turning circles and horribly insane acceleration, etc. AA missiles in this game are sort of like a addemdum to AG missiles; there is a small config that defines wether a chosen missile launcher can (in addition) lock on air targets. this in effect sorts missiles into two classifications: ones than can hit ground, and ones that are omi-lockable. there is no 'pure' anti-air missile in this engine, and no simple config change to make it that way. yes, a script could probably be written, but odds are it'd have to be a bit complcated to do so (i've got no idea about scripting, so i don't know just how extensive it'd need to be) or maybe an actual missile addon could be created that does this. but that's up to others to do.

thx man, this really explains a lot.

[echo1 0]

Three pages of heated debate over an engine bug...

[max power 21]

Three pages of heated debate over an engine bug...  

Not sure the debate was heated, but thanks for your concern.

If you're bored and like to spam, mayhaps you would be interested in joining the valve forums?

[Col. Faulkner 0]

FWIW the British Starstreak SAM is capable of penetrating

the frontal armour of an AFV - specifically an FV432 (as has

been practically demonstrated). This makes it unique among

shoulder launched anti-air missiles.

[echo1 0]

If you're bored and like to spam, mayhaps you would be interested in joining the valve forums?

I find that a bit rich coming from someone who tried to justify an engine bug as being intentional realism.

As Hailstorm pointed out, this is all because Anti-Air missiles weren't meant to be in OFP originally, and ArmA inherits a lot of its flaws. If you ever pop open a config.bin file, you'll see that there's no option that allows you to lock on to Air targets but not ground targets.

If you wish me to make a more substantive opinion on the matter, here you go - Anti air missiles are not designed to be fired at ground targets. There are cases where they have worked against ground targets, but thats unintentional. If youre going to enable Sidewinders to attack ground targets, you might as well enable GBUs or Mavericks to attack air targets on the off chance that they might be able to hit other air targets. Things like ADATS or Starstreak dont really count because theyre designed to be multirole weapons.

[max power 21]

I find that a bit rich coming from someone who tried to justify an engine bug as being intentional realism.

LOL. I didn't do anything of the sort. I was asking the question as to whether it was realistic or not. No one provided any sources on the subject, just what was done in other video games. Eventually, I went out to find out from a readily available if unreliable source.

Perhaps you're not sophisticated enough to note the difference of cautioning people against relying on their feeling of how things ought to be and how they might actually be. I was calling for reference, and surmising how they might work based on my understanding of how their guidance systems work to provide an alternative point of view in the absence of actual information.

And I'm sure rpgs weren't meant specifically to shoot into cave mouths tho shower the insides with rock fragments, and yet, there they were in Afghanistan. The F-15 wasn't designed to be a strike aircraft... the Austin mini wasn't design to be a race car... The logic that just because something wasn't design to do something therefore shouldn't or can't is ridiculous. The only factor that needs considering is the capabilities of the seeker head.

Lastly, the word bug gets thrown around an awful lot around here. A lack in fidelity does not necessitate a bug. I'm sure that system works exactly as the software engineers designed it. Whether or not it is realistically correct is neither here nor there. Design choices are made with more than just realism in mind.

[frederf 0]

I agree that bug does not describe it. A bug is when the software does something it wasn't designed to do, like crashing when you hit enter or spelling your name backward.

When the software design is wrong but the software code faithfully executes that design you have what is called "a design flaw" or in this case where the features of the design in question are outside of the scope of the simulation, then it's a "lack of fidelity" or "oversimplification."

While I suppose getting realism in if a MANPAD ($200,000) can actually lock on to a Toyota HiLux ($15,000) is nice, you have to admit that players are going to do this far more often in the game than in real life if it turns out to be possible. It's rather to get a ridiculously unreal scenario using unrealistic tools.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]... the Austin mini wasn't design to be a race car...

It was.

Quote[/b] ]Issigonis' friend John Cooper, owner of the Cooper Car Company and designer and builder of Formula 1 and rally cars, saw the potential of the Mini for competition. Issigonis was initially reluctant to see the Mini in the role of a performance car - but after John Cooper appealed to BMC management, the two men collaborated to create the Mini Cooper, a nimble, economical and inexpensive car. The Austin Mini Cooper and Morris Mini Cooper debuted in 1961. [6][18]

The original 848 cc engine from the Morris Mini-Minor was increased to 997 cc, boosting power from 34 bhp to 55 bhp (25 to 41 kW). [8] The car featured a racing-tuned engine, twin SU carburettors, a closer-ratio gearbox and front disc brakes, uncommon at the time in a small car. One thousand units of this version were commissioned by management, intended for and designed to meet the homologation rules of Group 2 rally racing. The 997 cc engine was replaced by a shorter stroke 998 cc unit in 1964.

A more powerful Mini Cooper, dubbed the "S", was developed in tandem and released in 1963. Featuring a 1071 cc engine and larger servo-assisted disc brakes, 4,030 Cooper S cars were produced and sold until the model was updated in August 1964. Cooper also produced two models specifically for circuit racing, rated at 970 cc and a 1275 cc, both of which were also offered to the public. The smaller-engine model was not well received, and only 963 had been built when the model was discontinued in 1965. The 1275 cc Cooper S models continued in production until 1971.

Dingdong.

[echo1 0]

LOL.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps you're not sophisticated enough...

I've never been accused of being a simpleton by a person who uses words like "lol", but c'est la vie, this is the internet...

Quote[/b] ] Whether or not it is realistically correct is neither here nor there. Design choices are made with more than just realism in mind.

Surely the whole point of your line of enquiry is to establish whether or not it is realistic to use AA missiles against ground targets. Saying that realism is irrelevant largely defeats the purpose.

Quote[/b] ]Not sure the debate was heated, but thanks for your concern.

If you're bored and like to spam, mayhaps you would be interested in joining the valve forums?

The way I read the thread was as follows: a member asks if something can be done, someone gives an answer. People argue over the realism of the bug/design flaw that caused the problem. I was pointing out the irrelevancy of arguing over something that was more than likely an unintentional mistake by the developers. Now, maybe Im not "sophisticated" enough to comprehend the true greater purpose of your most masterful rhetoric, but for Christ's sake, dont be an asshole about it...

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]... the Austin mini wasn't design to be a race car...  

It was.

Quote[/b] ]Issigonis' friend John Cooper, owner of the Cooper Car Company and designer and builder of Formula 1 and rally cars, saw the potential of the Mini for competition. Issigonis was initially reluctant to see the Mini in the role of a performance car - but after John Cooper appealed to BMC management, the two men collaborated to create the Mini Cooper, a nimble, economical and inexpensive car. The Austin Mini Cooper and Morris Mini Cooper debuted in 1961. [6][18]

The original 848 cc engine from the Morris Mini-Minor was increased to 997 cc, boosting power from 34 bhp to 55 bhp (25 to 41 kW). [8] The car featured a racing-tuned engine, twin SU carburettors, a closer-ratio gearbox and front disc brakes, uncommon at the time in a small car. One thousand units of this version were commissioned by management, intended for and designed to meet the homologation rules of Group 2 rally racing. The 997 cc engine was replaced by a shorter stroke 998 cc unit in 1964.

A more powerful Mini Cooper, dubbed the "S", was developed in tandem and released in 1963. Featuring a 1071 cc engine and larger servo-assisted disc brakes, 4,030 Cooper S cars were produced and sold until the model was updated in August 1964. Cooper also produced two models specifically for circuit racing, rated at 970 cc and a 1275 cc, both of which were also offered to the public. The smaller-engine model was not well received, and only 963 had been built when the model was discontinued in 1965. The 1275 cc Cooper S models continued in production until 1971.

Dingdong.  

The cooper was a later performance development of the mini economy car.  The mini wasn't designed to be a race car.  You ought to actually read what you're quoting.

Quote[/b] ]

Surely the whole point of your line of enquiry is to establish whether or not it is realistic to use AA missiles against ground targets. Saying that realism is irrelevant largely defeats the purpose.

A doesn't follow B.  I'm sorry if you got lost there.  I was saying that realism isn't a concern when you're attempting to classify things as a software bug or not.  

Quote[/b] ]

The way I read the thread was as follows: a member asks if something can be done, someone gives an answer. People argue over the realism of the bug/design flaw that caused the problem. I was pointing out the irrelevancy of arguing over something that was more than likely an unintentional mistake by the developers. Now, maybe Im not "sophisticated" enough to comprehend the true greater purpose of your most masterful rhetoric, but for Christ's sake, dont be an asshole about it...

He asked:

Quote[/b] ]

And generally, do u agree that AA rockets have not to be able locking on ground targets by default?

And I responded that I thought that the way it works is that those things can lock onto anything that's hot enough.  Someone else disagreed and said that it shouldn't be possible.  I rejoined with an elabouration of my thoughts and a call for some actual information.  I don't see how disagreement necessarily equates heat.

Futher, your comment, ending in ':rofl :'- to which, I would like to say, nice hypocrisy in calling me out for saying 'LOL'- was totally off topic, missed the spirit of the debate, and contributed nothing.  It was spam.

So, I hope you now understand, that TOP invited the discussion on whether or not we think that targetting ground vehicles should be allowed, and your post served- at best- no purpose.

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ]Surely the whole point of your line of inquiry is to establish whether or not it is realistic to use AA missiles against ground targets. Saying that realism is irrelevant largely defeats the purpose.

Whether a weapon system is realistically used against a target and can a weapon system realistically be used against a target are two different questions.