Interchangeable Aerial Weapon System

[[frl]myke 14]

***EDIT***

This start post was obsolete since i've changed the whole approach to it.

So here's the updated version.

IAWS (Interchangeable Aerial Weapon System)

===================================

Basic idea dehind is to provide a System that allows to change weapon systems (mainly bombs and AA/AG Missiles) between different planes from different addonmakers.

Sure thing it is already possible to use "addWeapon" and "addMagazine" command to get another weapon on the plane. But first, this need to be scripted and isn't dynamically self-updating available weapon systems and it doesn't take into account that weapon points may differ from plane to plane (as A10 can carry 5 missiles, AV8B 6 and AV8B2 can carry 4 missiles, in example).

The system i'm working (and where i already have a working preview sample ready) will take these differences into account and only offer weapon systems that fits on plane. So no 6 round magazine on a 5 round capable plane.

This systems requires that addonmakers do include some settings into theyr config. The system isn't meant to be a mandatory addon, planes will also work without the IAWS system installed. They will behave as they do right now without the system.

Just IF it is installed, it will give the player the freedom to choose from ALL weapons of ALL installed addons without the need to edit a mission just to include new weapons.

Also i take into account that some missionmakers maybe don't want to have any weapon available, for this i will give missionmakers two arrays at hand on which they can explicitly allow or deny weapons.

About the config changes.

====================

I've remarked that it is possible to add self-defined config entries , thats the point where the system steps in.

Here's an example config with original ArmA A10 and AV8B with enabled IAWS:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

class CfgVehicles {

class AV8B;

class IAWS_AV8B : AV8B {

scope = 2;

displayName = "AV8B IAWS";

vehicleClass = "IAWS_AIR";

IAWS_pylons = 6;

weapons[] = {"GAU12", "IAWS_6Rnd_Launcher_AG"};

magazines[] = {"300Rnd_25mm_GAU12", "IAWS_6Rnd_Maverick"};

};

class A10;

class IAWS_A10 : A10 {

scope = 2;

displayName = "A10 IAWS";

vehicleClass = "IAWS_AIR";

IAWS_pylons = 5;

weapons[] = {"GAU12", "IAWS_6Rnd_BombLauncher"};

magazines[] = {"300Rnd_25mm_GAU12", "IAWS_5Rnd_GBU12"};

};

};

As you see, there's a new entry named "IAWS_pylons" which defines how many missiles/bombs can be attached to this plane. This is used to sort out the magazines that will not fit on the plane.

Another change is in the CfgMagazines part:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

class CfgMagazines {

/*extern*/ class VehicleMagazine;

class IAWS_6Rnd_Maverick: VehicleMagazine {

scope = 1;

IAWS_Launcher = "IAWS_6Rnd_Launcher_AG";

displayName = "$STR_DN_MAVERICK";

count = 6;

ammo = "M_Maverick_AT";

initSpeed = 0;

sound[] = {"\ca\Weapons\Data\Sound\TOW_2", 3.162278, 1};

reloadSound[] = {"\ca\Weapons\Data\Sound\missload", 0.000316, 1};

};

class IAWS_5Rnd_Maverick: IAWS_6Rnd_Maverick {

count = 5;

};

class IAWS_4Rnd_Maverick: IAWS_6Rnd_Maverick {

count = 4;

};

class IAWS_3Rnd_Maverick: IAWS_6Rnd_Maverick {

count = 3;

};

class IAWS_2Rnd_Maverick: IAWS_6Rnd_Maverick {

count = 2;

};

};

Here is also a new entry, named "IAWS_Launcher" which should include the Weapon class name this magazine belongs to.

These settings are mandatory for IAWS work properly. Another change which isn't really mandatory but "should be included" is, to define subclasses for each magazine for lower (or higher) roundcount.

If you would like to get a closer idea if and how it works, here's a link for a working preview version:

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/372-iaws_air_scripts.zip

Do not use it as final working addon since this is really alpha stuff and needs to be refined and tweaked, although it already works nice. Major bug is, that if all missiles/bombs are fired, changing weapon does not work properly but i guess this is a little thing to solve. Another....well, not bug but not as it is meant to be is, that in the included demomission the action is added in the initline of the plane, later on this should be included in the config also. And for sure it is not meant to be used with actionmenu as it is right now but with a dialogue. Sadly i can't do this myself.

Further instructions on how to look at this preview version you'll find further down (post #11)

Greetz

Myke

[dachevs 1]

I think this would be nice. As to it would allow people to arm their favorite planes, with any new missile/weapon type. Which in my view is extremely cool. I say keep at it.

-DaChevs

[hardrock 1]

Hehe, funny that you mention that. Such a project (a similar one at least) has already been developed once for Operation Flashpoint, but it was only released as alpha. Go to the ACES description if you want to read more about it.

You can find the alpha download on old ofp.info. AFAIK it was released as open-source addon, so you might do with it whatever you want. I really suggest you join up with RockOfSL though, as he seems to be doing a similar thing for ArmA (only not that "standard"-oriented AFAIK).

Kind regards,

hardrock

[[frl]myke 14]

Thanks Hardrock (like your name, hardrock rules )

Indeed, i guessed that this idea wouldn't be any new or revolutionary so i already was wondering myself why there's nothing released.

Searched the old ofp.info site but not for long as it keeps annoying me with dozens of popups

I will try to contact RockofSL and see what he means and what he's working on exactly.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I read this the other day and I can see a demand for an arming GUI.  But without a significant change in the way weapons proxies on aircraft are handled I think its going to be very limited.  I couldn’t see where you proposed to change or improve the proxy limits in your post, unless I missed something? So I assume you are going to use the existing proxy handling system?

Basic idea is, to make all planes (maybe extending later, just had to start somewhere) available to load any available weapon (missile or bomb) from addons to any available plane.

Now, I agree with the basic idea.  It’s something, as Hardrock already said, we are working on too, but it gets a lot more complex when you try to work around the 1 proxy limit on aircraft.  If you are happy to work inside that limit then I guess you are OK but personally I’ve never been happy with it so we (RKSL) are trying to work around it.

I would like to know if addonmakers would make use of such a system.

I’m sure most would use it if it was easy enough to use.

I would like to know if mission makers would like to have such a dialogue system.

If the mission makers wouldn’t the end user would I am sure of that.

You’ve brought up some interesting points again.  Dynamic Arming system has been discussed repeatedly over the years.  I’ve even seen a few addons with arming GUIs.  TO do this they’ve used hidden selections, custom weapons proxies and a load of other ideas (ie mostly model changes) but all seem to have had issues.  Either MP compatibility, scripts causing desync  or random CTDs etc. To get around these problems they were all very tightly tailored to a specific addon.  I like the basic idea you have presented but I don’t think it’s going to be as simple as that in the long run. I suspect its going to be very hard to make a system that satisfies every addon in the way you suggest.  I’m sure Hardrock can tell you about some of the issues they faced with ACES.  I will say your basic idea isn’t too different than ours; we’re just taking a more closely defined approach to specific addons at the moment as well as proxy handling.

[hardrock 1]

we’re just taking a more closely defined approach to specific addons at the moment as well as proxy handling.

I personally think this approach is a good one. Like Kent Beck (XP anyone?) would say: make it work, then make it reusable.

As to the limits of ACES - our biggest limit was a lack of time of the core developers. In single player the system worked quite well, we never did any extensive tests in MP though. Additionally, making things work in MP during OFP times was rather tricky. I think this has changed with the new scripting capabilities of ArmA (plain assumption here).

@RockofSL: I'm really curious as to what you will come up with though. I saw some nice videos the other day. Mandoble made some nice air support dialogs too, together with his missile system he seems to be working on great things. Will you incorporate these in the RKSL addons? I think combining forces is always great, if the different interests can find a compromise.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

@RockofSL: I'm really curious as to what you will come up with though… Will you incorporate these in the RKSL addons?

To be honest I doubt it.  I’ve played with some of Mandoble’s stuff and while I like some things and I think they are very innovative and well made there are a lot of things I’d like to do in a different way.  But again we’ve not reached the point in our own addons where we really have to choose right now.  It maybe that later on we decide that Mandoble’s stuff is the way to go with some features I cant say for sure right now.

I think combining forces is always great, if the different interests can find a compromise.

I agree, but in some cases the developer’s idea of how something should work is often not compatible.  Right now the systems we are working on should fit along side most people’s efforts with no conflict.  Which will allow people to use Mandoble’s scripts along side our own if they wish to.

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]@RockofSL: I'm really curious as to what you will come up with though.

Well we are really just using the same concept as you did with ACES. Cargo proxies are still the most flexible way of changing the appearance of vehicles. We are trying a slightly different approach. Plus, Arma's scripting and config changes help circumvent some of the problems you faced in OFP. But it's still a lot of work, to produce less than perfect results. But hopefully, most of the time, no one will notice

[[frl]myke 14]

Well, to be honest, as i'm just started with addon configs and i have no clue about modelling nor tecturing, i know really less about proxies and hiddenSelection although i can imagine what they're for and how they work.

In fact, my approach was to live with the limits arma gives and use it as good as possible.

But as i se, there is some WIP around and i guess for me it's time to step back and leave the stage for the people who have the necessarly knowledge to get this to work far better than i had in mind.

[hardrock 1]

But as i se, there is some WIP around and i guess for me it's time to step back and leave the stage for the people who have the necessarly knowledge to get this to work far better than i had in mind.

No need to step back there It's ideas like yours that keep the wheel spinning. Public discussions with those who finally implement the ideas can always lead to better results. And in the worst case, these ideas will just continue to live out there, until someone maybe finds the necessity to realise them.

In my opinion public discussions about such features are important. Developers often tend to think they know and thought of everything (mainly speaking of myself here), while input from others is really important, even if those don't have the same technical skills. This input can help the single developer realise possibilities that he wouldn't have seen when focused on his way of doing things.

Last but not least, if you go and try to implement different things yourself, you'll always end up as a better developer afterwards. So in my opinion, starting to try out things, to let his creativity flow, can never be a waste of time - as long as you have some fun.

[[frl]myke 14]

Quote[/b] ]No need to step back there It's ideas like yours that keep the wheel spinning. Public discussions with those who finally implement the ideas can always lead to better results. And in the worst case, these ideas will just continue to live out there, until someone maybe finds the necessity to realise them.

Well, i'm affraid i haven't any choice. As i'm fairly well in scripting, i'm completely lost when it comes to dialogue making. But this would be an essential part to build a working "preview" version. It's sensless if i can handle all informations without presenting them properly.

I've asked a few mates but they're all busy with theyr own projects and i'm not like "hey, i need this and this done, who does it for me".

As said, i can collect any necessarly informations together but i don't get them into a dialogue or afterwards out of it.

[[frl]myke 14]

First of all: All written below and any downloads provided are part of very early research and study phase!

Do not use any of it for actual missions! It has Bugs, it is not tested for full functionality and also it is not yet what it means to become in the Future! You've been warned! If you use it in any way for mission making, do not complain about errors!

Well, needed to say that first. Now to topic. What i am working on is some kind of weapon standardization so that in the future any Missile or LGB that cames with any addon can be loaded easily on any plane from any addon without scripting or anything else. Just place the plane and make your choice for the weapon loadout from ALL available weapons for plane in ALL your addons.

To get a better idea how this could work, i've made a small preview version out of the whole system. This does not reflect what i have in mind for the end-product. It's just to test the mechanism, if it works as intended!

So you may download the file below to get a first glance at it. And here a few instructions so you can get a good idea about it's geniality

Included files:

IAWS.pbo //Core system

Weapontest.pbo //A10 and AV8B in IAWS-enabled configuration

Extended_Eventhandlers.pbo //needed addon, not direct part of the IAWS

GLT_Air.pbo //My GLT Air addon pack with enabled IAWS functionality

iaws.intro //Folder with a little demomission, well, in fact only a AV8B on Rhamadi to start on.

Ok, i strongly recommend to use a separate modfolder to use this and for testing, i think it's better you don't load any other modfolders so you can be sure, anything comes just from these addons.

First, place the IAWS.pbo, Weapontest.pbo and the extended_eventhandlers.pbo in your new modfolder. Do not place the GLT_Air.pbo in there yet. Also move the iaws.intro folder into your editormissions folder.

Start ArmA and load iaws.intro in the editor. Now you can test the weapon changings on the AV8B. Use the action menu for this. At this stage, you'll only have Sidewinders, GBU12 and Mavericks to choose from.

Ok, close ArmA and now move also the GLT_Air.pbo into the modfolder. Restart the whole thing.

As you can see, you have a lot more weapons to choose from and the only thing that changed is that you just added a new addon which is IAWS compatible.

Right now it has some bugs in it, biggest bug is, if you fire missiles, the reloading with new weapons doesn't work. It will work as long at least 1 missile is present.

Also the final shouldn't have a action menu but a pretty dialogue to choose from but sadly i can't make dialogues for my life. If anyone would offer his help on this topic, it is really appreciated.

Also right now only missiles/bombs are planned, maybe later extend it to FFAR and Guns, but i guess this is rather senseless as there aren't any difference between them on use.

So tell me your thoughts and your opinions about it but keep in mind that this actual version is only to present the main basic idea.

Download:

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/372-iaws_air_scripts.zip

:EDIT:

What does it change for addonmakers?

Not much, just including one more line in vehicles config and one more line in magazines config.

Does a IAWS enabled addon require IAWS installed?

No, not at all. Without IAWS installed the addon plane will work as it does now.

Wouldn't it be unfair to have any weapon available to load?

Might be, that's why i plan to introduce 2 variables which "can" be used by missionmakers: IAWS_allowedWeapons and IAWS_forbiddenWeapons.

By defining one of them you might allow or deny some specific weapons.

What if someone has more IAWS enabled addons than other players?

IAWS Core is executed on server only so weapon list represents weapons available on server. Clientside addons aren't taken into account for final weapon list.

[[frl]myke 14]

So i see there's no interest for this, so i'll put the work i've already done in the trashbin. I'm not interested to waste my time on something no ones interested in.

Only feedback i've got was "we're working on something similar" (@RockofSL: i'm sure it will be genius...whenever it comes out) or "we were working on something similar in the past" or, and this was the most received feedback, nothing.

Even on PM's to some addonmakers was not givin any response (except eddyD).

So, if there's no need for, it's pointless to spend more time on it.

Honestly, sometimes i feel like (not only here, also when reading other topics) as you're not taken serious if you don't have a name (like Mandoble or Franze or RockofSL, all respect to theyr work, they're really great members of the comm) or if you aren't a member of one of those (really great, no doubt of it) addon makers groups like RKSL or Mapfact.

If you're alone and don't have a name, chances are great to be ignored pretty fast.

Don't take me wrong, all named persons or groups have my full respect and i know they'll surely have enough to do on theyr own projects.

But i also know they aren't the only members in this forum so i hoped for a little more feedback or even some offers to help on some particular problems.

I know i can't do it on my own since there are a few gaps in my knowledge that make it impossible for me to complete it.

And even if i could complete it, it would only be a base and without support from addonmakers, willing to adapt theyr work to make it compatible, it is completely worthless. Honestly, in this case, i can spend my time on other things.

Myke out

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

So i see there's no interest for this, so i'll put the work i've already done in the trashbin. I'm not interested to waste my time on something no ones interested in.

Only feedback i've got was "we're working on something similar" (@RockofSL: i'm sure it will be genius...whenever it comes out) or "we were working on something similar in the past" or, and this was the most received feedback, nothing.

Even on PM's to some addonmakers was not givin any response (except eddyD).

So, if there's no need for, it's pointless to spend more time on it.

Honestly, sometimes i feel like (not only here, also when reading other topics) as you're not taken serious if you don't have a name (like Mandoble or Franze or RockofSL, all respect to theyr work, they're really great members of the comm) or if you aren't a member of one of those (really great, no doubt of it) addon makers groups like RKSL or Mapfact.

If you're alone and don't have a name, chances are great to be ignored pretty fast.

Don't take me wrong, all named persons or groups have my full respect and i know they'll surely have enough to do on theyr own projects.

But i also know they aren't the only members in this forum so i hoped for a little more feedback or even some offers to help on some particular problems.

I know i can't do it on my own since there are a few gaps in my knowledge that make it impossible for me to complete it.

And even if i could complete it, it would only be a base and without support from addonmakers, willing to adapt theyr work to make it compatible, it is completely worthless. Honestly, in this case, i can spend my time on other things.

Myke out

Personally I’ve not had time to sit and analyse your posts...I have our own projects.  A business and a girlfriend to entertain... so give people some time and they will respond.

As for "being taken seriously", you’ll find that the people who are taken "seriously" are the ones that are willing to devote their own time to finding solutions.  Try doing something for yourself and learn a bit more about dialogs if that what your weakness is.  Ask inthe Editing forums and people will help you when they can.

Other than that, seriously, just be patient.

[mandoble 1]

Well, I cannot help you if you want to proceed using BIS weapon systems (due my lack of knowledge and interest). On the other hand I can help you if you want to use Mando systems

And yes, with Mando systems you can have different combinations of AG/AA missiles or guided bombs for a single plane type for both, AI and players. As examples already available to download: harriers in AA mode (4 AA missiles), harriers in LGB mode (2 AA missiles + 4 LGBs), harriers in anti-radar mode (2 AA missiles + 2 anti-radar missiles). And you may also create your own guided weapons systems. There are also examples of Su34B in AG mode and in anti-radar configurations.

[[frl]myke 14]

@RockofSL

It wasn't my attention to address you directly as i know you surely have your own work to complete and for sure you'll have a RL to take care of. And honestly, since you wrote that RKSL is developing something similar, i didn't count to get any feedbacks from there, although you might see that your knowledge is far above mine, so why go back down again.

Quote[/b] ]As for "being taken seriously", you’ll find that the people who are taken "seriously" are the ones that are willing to devote their own time to finding solutions. Try doing something for yourself and learn a bit more about dialogs if that what your weakness is. Ask inthe Editing forums and people will help you when they can.

If you keep in mind that i've just start maybe 4 weeks ago with addon making and therefor goin into config.cpp stuff, i guess i can state i made fast progress, although i could even already present a working, easy to implement system which would need some finetuning and define the base requirements to give on addonmakers.

About dialogues, don't think i didn't tried it, read a lot of tutes but they all left me with more questions and confusions afterwards. Almost all tutes starts at a point which isn't the point a real beginner stands at. Also reading through other dialogue scripts and configs confused me even more.

Again, RockofSL, in the previous post i wans't addressing to you, respecting that you already have a lot of projects to work on.

@Mandoble

Hmmm...couldn't find "Mando System" anywhere, or were you speaking of Mando Missile or Mando Bombs? A genious work both, no doubt of it but as from what i've read and saw about it, it isn't even close to what i'm about to do.

And Mandoble, do me a favour: do not step in just to say "use my works or i'm not interested in this topic at all". I know that you're always willing to help and you're a great, sympatic guy, no doubt and i learned a lot with your personal help.

But if a Pro like you steps in and has to state that this project has no aspect of interest for him, then i consider this a a prove that it's worthless to keep the work up on it.

[mandoble 1]

But if a Pro like you steps in and has to state that this project has no aspect of interest for him

Is not that the objetive doesnt interest me, quite the opposite. Is that I'm not interested in BIS weapon systems, mostly in BIS missiles.

Probably I have not understood correctly what you are trying to do, but if it is related to have different loadouts for a single vehicle type (as final objetive), then it is perfectly reacheable with mando missiles.

But probably this is not what you are looking for, sorry then.

[[frl]myke 14]

No need to sorry Mandoble, i really like your work really.

To clarify what the system is intended to do:

Addonmaker A creates a plane A (model and config) and missile A (also model and config).

Addonmaker B creates plane B and missile B.

Both have theyr own planes loaded with theyr own missiles or bombs, as usual.

If you want to use now missile B on plane A, it has to be done by missionmaker by using addweapon and addmagazine, which works. Only problem that might come up if the count of missile loading points differ, as it is the case on A10 (5 missiles) and the AV8B (6 bombs). Right now, if you make simple addweapon/addmagazine with the ArmA GBU12 to the A10, you'll see 5 bombs but you can drop 6, as defined in the CfgMagazines for the GBU12.

Now, if the IAWS is in use and the plane and mags are configured to make use of it you can board plane A or plane B and you can change the loadout, selecting missile A or missile B.

Now expanding this to 12 different addon planes, each with it's own missiles loadout. Or also it makes it easier to create standalone weaponpacks for planes.

The IAWS will scan all addons if they're compatible, either as plane or as weapon or both, and make them available without one single code in the mission itself.

If the plane you're sitting in is IAWS compatible, you can choose from any IAWS compatible missile/bomb, no matter in which addon it is.

Thats the whole idea with it. I started with A10 and AV8B since everyone knows them and has them since they're part of ArmA. But the system is not meant only for stock ArmA stuff but for any addon plane out there.

For sure i want to give missionmakers some tools at hand to restrict the use of some weapons if they would make a mission too easy or too unbalanced.

If you find some time, please take a closer look to the preview. Although it still has some minor bugs in it and the presenting isn't what i have in mind, the mechanism itself works pretty well as intended and gives a clear idea what it is meant to be at last.

[hardrock 1]

I currently do not have a working setup of ArmA, that's why I cannot test your work. I can only tell you that coming up with some original work is always tedious. Don't expect the people to hop in here and shout out how great your work and ideas are. Unfortunately that's not how it works.

If you take a closer look though, you'll find that the successfull projects are those of people who didn't give up. People who just wanted to create something and kept on trying, and sooner or later other people realised that there was some great work and spread the word.

Mandoble might be a perfect example for this. He started creating scripts, but only when he started to release usable solutions and did his marketing homework (YouTube... ) people started to get interested in his work (I hope I am correct here - no offense meant). Or FDF, who developed a full scale mod, but only when the mod was complete and people started to use it in MP, they realised how great this mod really was, even though it might not have had the best graphical look at this time.

Keep up your work and don't get desperate after your first try. Just remind my signature:

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:darkblue'>What you want to do is possible, depending on your imagination and the way you implement it</span></span>

[manzilla 1]

Well, I cannot help you if you want to proceed using BIS weapon systems (due my lack of knowledge and interest). On the other hand I can help you if you want to use Mando systems

And yes, with Mando systems you can have different combinations of AG/AA missiles or guided bombs for a single plane type for both, AI and players. As examples already available to download: harriers in AA mode (4 AA missiles), harriers in LGB mode (2 AA missiles + 4 LGBs), harriers in anti-radar mode (2 AA missiles + 2 anti-radar missiles). And you may also create your own guided weapons systems. There are also examples of Su34B in AG mode and in anti-radar configurations.

First, I am looking at this and so far I like it. Unfortunately, I have only tried it for about 45 minutes total thus far. It usually takes me a while to get enough time testing something before I feel like I can offer something useful. I just don't have time to do this stuff for extended periods of time.

So usually after a few days of a release I've only been able to put in an hour max looking at something. I'll keep checking it out but only little by little.

Now to be honest, I like what I see with this concept but I completely agree with Mandoble's feedback. I hope you consider using Mando's systems in place of BIS's. Looking from your aspect, taking up Mandoble's offer and advice would probably make the WIP process a heluva lot simpler on yourself. Remember, the guy is a god damn genius!

[[frl]myke 14]

Quote[/b] ]Remember, the guy is a god damn genius!

Indeed, no doubt of this fact.

But Mando Missiles (what i guess this is what you mean by speaking of Mando Systems) isn't even close to what i am trying to do. As far as i understand Mando Missile it modifies missiles targeting and flying path (this sentence simplifies it to the max as mando Missiles is surely far more than that) but has nothing to do with the models itself....you know, the p3d stuff and the related config.cpp.

The IAWS doesn't change anything on weapons behaviour like flying path or targeting abilities. It isn't meant to do that. If a missile use Mando Missile as "simulation replacement" (don't even know if this would be possible), as long it has a CfgMagazines entry which is compatible with IAWS it can be loaded into a IAWS compatible plane.

Now if i'm completely wrong please correct me but as far as i understood from what i've read about MM, it can use any missile p3d as visible missile, even a GBU12 and thats all it has to do with weapon addons.

[mandoble 1]

A missile doesnt use mando missile, is that mando missile uses a missile (not the opposite). For example, you might have a BIS weaponless Harrier (removing all its weapons) able to fire simulated inertial guided AMRAAMS and simulated Harpoons. The object you use for the missile is up to you, as long as it is within any of your existing addons. You dont even need to use a magazine, you may use vehicles as missiles too (use a tractor as missile body if you wish, missile body is just eye-candy). If you use an explosive object as missile body, then you may want to use its own detonation power as warhead, else you may script your own warhead (just copying and modifying any of the existing templates) and use proximity fuzzes instead of direct impact ones.

What you call "simulation replacement" is just a quite small part of MMA where the stock (BIS type) missile is replaced by a mando one when fired (using BIS locking and firing systems), but in this very particular case you are depending on the existance of that missile in the real weapons loadout of that plane.

[[frl]myke 14]

Well, what you wrote fits basically with my last sentence. I'm curious: right now it isn't possible to visually add different missile types on any plane, no matter if addon or BIS planes (except Franze's F/A18 which uses it's very own system).

You give the example that you could have a BIS Harrier equipped with simulated AMRAAM's and simulated Harpoons. How do you get around the limitation that "mixed" weapons isn't possible to add?

Or does MandoMissile don't care about this point and uses one and the same missile body (your so-called eye-candy) for both weapons?

[mandoble 1]

Both weapons? which "both weapons"? MMA doesnt use BIS weapons. MMA may provide you a Su34B that fires cruise missiles using land rovers as missile body, long range AA missiles using Harriers as missile body, AG missiles using Hellfire as missile body and anti-radar missiles using a road cones as missile body. It is a paralell weapon system, it doesnt use BIS weapons, it doesnt use BIS locking on system, it doesnt use BIS firing system (while you can proceed with basic replacement as described above).

[[frl]myke 14]

Question remains: how do you attach different missile bodies to the plane? Before firing them? How?

So you "simulate" a AMRAAM and you "simulate" Harpoon...so when i got those attached to a plane, will there be (if i defined the model to be so) AMRAAMs and Harpoons hangin? Or tractor and Skoda if i took those as missile body?

This is the question: how does it look like when the missiles are on the plane, not when fired.

As said before, at least at stock ArmA planes you can't have different missile bodies hangin below the plane. I tried to add 4 Mavericks and 2 Sidewinders to the AV8B but when i looked at it, there were hangin 6 Mavericks. Although when i fired the Sidewinders, a Maverick changed it's shape magically from "Maverick" to "Sidewinder" which is IMHO inacceptable.