Aa rockets vs ground

[MaxRiga 0]

is it possible to make a single fix or script to turn off such option as AA rockets locking on ground targets !? i'm sure it somehow easy because GBU anti-ground rockets can't be lock on air units. And generally, do u agree that AA rockets have not to be able locking on ground targets by default?

[RN Malboeuf 12]

airLock = true/false; in cfgAmmo section

[max power 21]

is it possible to make a single fix or script to turn off such option as AA rockets locking on ground targets !? i'm sure it somehow easy because GBU anti-ground rockets can't be lock on air units. And generally, do u agree that AA rockets have not to be able locking on ground targets by default?

Those missiles are infrared seeking. They should be able to lock onto anything that's hot.

GBU's are laser guided bombs. They should seek to anything you have your laser target designator pointing at, including aircraft.

[subs17 9]

Those missiles are infrared seeking.  They should be able to lock onto anything that's hot.

No they shouldn't A/A missiles can't lock onto ground targets unless the conditions allow it and the heat is enough for them to get a growl. IMO its better and more realistic in Arma if IR missiles can only lock onto aircraft. eg Strela, Aim 9, stinger etc.

[Wolfrug 0]

Well, at least for AI, since it's annoying to see them waste their expensive AA missiles on ground vehicles. >_<

As to scripting workaround. Eehh...well maybe. It's not necessarily impossible. But I doubt it'd be easy nor foolproof.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[MaxRiga 0]

at least there should be such option in veteran mod - turn off AA rockets vs ground

[max power 21]

Those missiles are infrared seeking.  They should be able to lock onto anything that's hot.

No they shouldn't A/A missiles can't lock onto ground targets unless the conditions allow it and the heat is enough for them to get a growl. IMO its better and more realistic in Arma if IR missiles can only lock onto aircraft. eg Strela, Aim 9, stinger etc.

This makes a lot of assumptions. Lots of military vehicles run very hot, not the least of which is the m1 abrams. At this point, these are what you say, opinions. I would like to see some data on the subject, but I'm not motivated to find any. As far as I'm concerned, there is evidence towards being able to lock on to at least some ground vehicles. There was a discussion about this on the show 'Greatest Ever' on their tanks feature.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The newer more advanced SAM such as the starstreak have the ability to lock ground targets as a feature.

Dual purpose ADATS are already becoming common.

As more hyper velocity SAMs come into use I would think dual purpose will be come as standard as the German use of the 88mm Flack gun as an anti tank gun.

Kind Regards walker

[Rommel 2]

veteran mod

If its on anyway you can't see what your locking, who knows any better?

Which is where you just hope its locked on, which is where I must say I appreciate the Javelin with its auto lock on feature.

If anyone here knows or has used one, can they describe how you know it locks on, my experiences with Call of Duty 4 are the only things I can draw down on and it would seem it creates a beep on lock on. In any case, heat from an M1A1 would surely attract the infra-red seeking missile, but the heat from say a DSHKM is irrelavant?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] As far as I'm concerned, there is evidence towards being able to lock on to at least some ground vehicles. There was a discussion about this on the show 'Greatest Ever' on their tanks feature.

The Abrams is a very bad example as it´s using a gas turbine that naturally causes much higher temperatures in it´s exhaust fumes. Modern MBT´s cool their exhaust fumes, either by pumping them through a watercanister or mixing it up with cooled air from an aggregate. This way the exhaust fumes are brought to the temperature of the surrounding area.

To stealthen the heat signature of a tank there are several common ways:

- Use paint or surface material that absorbes and emitts heat differently in patterns over the tank, this way the infrared sillouette and the heat signature gets disrupted and it´s hard to spot tanks

- Cool exhaust fumes, that´s almost standard with most of the tanks that are in use today (exception gas-turbine)

- Active countermeasures like infrared searchlights, smoke grenades that produce high temperature sparkles, and finally directable shotgun-ammunition that actively can take out incoming missiles

Unless all that gets implemented in Arma I´m happy that currently there´s a reasonable distinction between air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, not even keeping in mind that the warhead built to destroy an airframe is different than a warhead to destroy a tank. You could also end up firing an AA missile to a ground target without any significant damage done to the tank because of the AA warhead´s nature.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Don't forget the different kind of warheads and of course the differences between air defence missile systems and anti-armour missiles. (action movies and FPS games are usually not close to realism...)

ADATS is quite good improvement would be awesome ingame with real spec's. But than we need much bigger islands and better hardware.

[walker 0]

ADATS is quite good improvement would be awesome ingame with real spec's. But than we need much bigger islands and better hardware.  

Hi all

My use of bold in quoted text.

In Reply to NoRailgunner

Realistic data is NOT going to happen in a game because the data is classified and making a true MANPADS simulation other than under license for your countries military is against the ITAR TASS treaties and so against the law in all signatory countries. Which is basically the whole world.

The reasons for the inclusion of simulation in the treaty is to prevent terrorist from getting good at shooting down airliners.

The treaty classifies such simulations as a munition.

Here you go have a read

http://web.mit.edu/osp....are.pdf

The link to the US Munitions list in the above is out of date, it is same one I used in my papers on the subject, the ITAR stuff has been moved to this government site

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/docs/ITAR/2007/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

Kind Regards walker

[subs17 9]

Those missiles are infrared seeking.  They should be able to lock onto anything that's hot.

No they shouldn't A/A missiles can't lock onto ground targets unless the conditions allow it and the heat is enough for them to get a growl. IMO its better and more realistic in Arma if IR missiles can only lock onto aircraft. eg Strela, Aim 9, stinger etc.

This makes a lot of assumptions.  Lots of military vehicles run very hot, not the least of which is the m1 abrams.  At this point, these are what you say, opinions.  I would like to see some data on the subject, but I'm not motivated to find any.  As far as I'm concerned, there is evidence towards being able to lock on to at least some ground vehicles.  There was a discussion about this on the show 'Greatest Ever' on their tanks feature.

Well look at it from this perspective the Aim 9 early models from the Aim 9x had to have the right conditions in order to fire against aircraft. Although its an all aspect missile its still got to see the heat source and isolate it from the background. If a target is on the ground then it has the problem of ground clutter to contend with which means the vehicle would need to be hot enough for it to see and due to the reflection from the sun the ground makes it harder for the seeker to lock. The only time I've ever heard of where an AAM has locked onto ground vehicles was AIM7s by F-15s by using the A/G radar. (not IR missiles, and even that story raises questions) The next thing to think about is the explosive in the missile do you really think a Stinger would take out an MBT I mean seriously all its gonna do is make the tank crew laugh at you. And then reply with coax gun . Even medium/light armour could probably easily take a hit from a stinger.

[subs17 9]

ADATS is quite good improvement would be awesome ingame with real spec's. But than we need much bigger islands and better hardware.  

Hi all

My use of bold in quoted text.

In Reply to NoRailgunner

Realistic data is NOT going to happen in a game because the data is classified and making a true MANPADS simulation other than under license for your countries military is against the ITAR TASS treaties and so against the law in all signatory countries. Which is basically the whole world.

The reasons for the inclusion of simulation in the treaty is to prevent terrorist from getting good at shooting down airliners.

The treaty classifies such simulations as a munition.

Here you go have a read

http://web.mit.edu/osp....are.pdf

The link to the US Munitions list in the above is out of date, it is same one I used in my papers on the subject, the ITAR stuff has been moved to this government site

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/docs/ITAR/2007/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

Kind Regards walker

Actually it is possible to properly model IR missiles in a realistic manner which is good enough for Jet combat flight sims such as Lockon, Falcon 4 etc. So if they can do it anyone can its a simple matter of researching the missiles performance, features, history and physics involved. Things such as acceleration from launch, gimbal limits etc can be found on the internet for some missiles. For IR missiles vs aircraft you have to take into account the range, aspect velocity etc.

[subs17 9]

Don't forget the different kind of warheads and of course the differences between air defence missile systems and anti-armour missiles. (action movies and FPS games are usually not close to realism...)

ADATS is quite good improvement would be awesome ingame with real spec's. But than we need much bigger islands and better hardware.  

The islands have more than enough room for ADATs and it would be a match for Russian Tungaska or other airdefence vehicles.

[frederf 0]

You don't shoot BMP-2s with AIM-9s. The game codes objects as having "IR signature" 1 or 0 and weapons as "Can lock onto IR" as 1 or 0.

[max power 21]

MANPADs must also be able to isolate a signature from background clutter, and military helicopters also cool their exhaust. Also, not all potential airborne targets are turbine powered.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to SUBS17

Yes some people have the knowledge to make MANPADS simulations. That is why it is against the law to do so.  

In much the same way as people might know how to make a fertilizer bomb that is why that is against the law too.

This is why if you work in this field you have to be aware of what you can and cannot do when you are not in a secure government lab.

If you work in this field, you do not put certain ideas you have on your laptop. They stay in the secure lab computers on their secure servers. If your transporting them abroad, you get permission.

That is what the first of the links I put up is talking about.

Kind Regards walker

[Rak 0]

AA missiles can't lock ground targets, period. This IS very unlikely, as there is no method on aircraft that allows locking AA missilies to a ground target. IF it locks, then it should be considered as a "defected" missile. Because last thing you want to happen with an AA missile is that it's locking a campfire just under your rivals's craft . . .

Talking about new "generation of missiles can do blah" is irrevelant to Armed Assault, as we don't have such missiles in stock game. Using AA for ground targets like "everydays routine" for AI

The only exception is Ka-50 with Vikhr missile pods, those missiles can hit both air and ground. (dunno if it's modelled in Arma though)

[Beagle 684]

Hi all

In reply to SUBS17

Yes some people have the knowledge to make MANPADS simulations. That is why it is against the law to do so.  

In much the same way as people might know how to make a fertilizer bomb that is why that is against the law too.

This is why if you work in this field you have to be aware of what you can and cannot do when you are not in a secure government lab.

If you work in this field, you do not put certain ideas you have on your laptop. They stay in the secure lab computers on their secure servers. If your transporting them abroad, you get permission.

That is what the first of the links I put up is talking about.

Kind Regards walker

This is a somewhat strange interpretation of the matter.

Law apply only within it's coverage area.

But that would be a good Explanation why realistic simulations for the PC consumer market are developed in Europe and Russia nowadays.

AND you dont need new data just so simulate e seeker. A good Emulation will do it for gaming purposes.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Quote[/b] ]The islands have more than enough room for ADATs and it would be a match for Russian Tungaska or other airdefence vehicles.

To simulate more complex combat scenarios there should be no limit.

Placing ADATS, Tunguska, Pantsyr etc on good positions would be a nightmare for most gaming pilots.

Shilkas groups are working irl "usually" with 4-5 vehicles...but ingame its mostly done with 1-2. Little advantage for pilots.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Beagle.

The laws are international, they are based on the international treaty on arms control. In this case particularly regarding MANPADS.

Do a search in your own countries laws you will find identical laws.

Just because you do not have the real data does not mean you are not breaking the law. The mere act of making something close to the reality is sufficient. Same as not having a fertilizer bomb recipe and managing to make one is still against the law.

Kind regards walker

[subs17 9]

Quote[/b] ]The islands have more than enough room for ADATs and it would be a match for Russian Tungaska or other airdefence vehicles.

To simulate more complex combat scenarios there should be no limit.

Placing ADATS, Tunguska, Pantsyr etc on good positions would be a nightmare for most gaming pilots.  

Shilkas groups are working irl "usually" with 4-5 vehicles...but ingame its mostly done with 1-2. Little advantage for pilots.

Yeah you would need chaff/flare and ECM modelling plus search radars and anti-radiation missiles to balance things out. Although the A-10 could pick off a Tungaska if the right tactics and weapons were employed. Might be a different story with ADATs though I think maybe SU25T with phantasmagoria pod would match that.

[subs17 9]

Hi all

In reply to SUBS17

Yes some people have the knowledge to make MANPADS simulations. That is why it is against the law to do so.  

In much the same way as people might know how to make a fertilizer bomb that is why that is against the law too.

This is why if you work in this field you have to be aware of what you can and cannot do when you are not in a secure government lab.

If you work in this field, you do not put certain ideas you have on your laptop. They stay in the secure lab computers on their secure servers. If your transporting them abroad, you get permission.

That is what the first of the links I put up is talking about.

Kind Regards walker

You are looking at this the wrong way try seeing it like this, I use lockon and Open Falcon regularly which model to a good degree of accuracy IR homing missiles. I see the stinger missile and other manpads as just an IR homing missile like the Aim9. The only difference with the manpads is the range in theory one could model both the Aim9 and stinger as the same with only difference being pk and range. You are not breaking any laws by modelling it the same as Lockon and open Falcon and other sims model it. In fact the stinger in Arma is already functioning similar to a real one in the way in which its used.(apart from being able to use it against vehicles)

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to SUBS17

I agree with you it is perfectly possible to model anything in ArmA. So modeling a stinger as an Aim9 Lockon style is as far as I can tell perfectly safe and legal.

I was pointing out in my original post to NoRailgunner why it was illegal to copy the processes and actions or attempt to model those actions and processes of a stinger or other MANPADS.

Just pointing out what the legal limits are on how good a game simulation can be. ArmA and OFP are the games closest to reality but as well as physical limits on programming there are legal ones too and they even apply to mod teams.

Kind Regards walker