Can countermeasures of F16 be ported to other air units like SU34?

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

My point was that it should be configurable for different missiles. This is quite easy in ArmA since you can add custom values to configs and check them in scripts.

Its not really that straight forward given ArmA's unique "physics" dynamically altering missile properties isnt easy. But its something we might look into for the SAMs if we pick up the FCSS again since the ArmA1 to ArmA2 engine opens up some interesting new possibilites.

Edited August 4, 2009 by RKSL-Rock
incomplete post.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

It doesn't really have to be that complex.

Here's an example. In ancient (OFP) times we used to have flares that fired when RPGs were shot at choppers, often times causing these unguided rockets to go wildly out of control... The only way to solve this problem was to have a list of every potential unguided projectile that could be fired at the thing.

Not every missile/rocket should be effected by flares. A flag in the config (ex. IRseeking = 1; < true or IRseeking = 0; < false) could be used to determine wether or not said missile can be defeated by flares.

There also exist IRL missiles that are much less decievable than most IR seekers (ex. UV duel seekers). Set a float value in the config (ex. IRdecievability = 0.15; < low, IRdecievability = 0.65; < standard) and factor that into the random success rate.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Big Dawg KS

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

It doesn't really have to be that complex.

Here's an example. In ancient (OFP) times we used to have flares that fired when RPGs were shot at choppers, often times causing these unguided rockets to go wildly out of control... The only way to solve this problem was to have a list of every potential unguided projectile that could be fired at the thing.

Ah i think i understand a bit better now. The RKSL Flares system has always had this feature. RPGs etc do not trigger the flares, nor are they deflected. Only AA or SAMs are affected.

Not every missile/rocket should be effected by flares. A flag in the config (ex. IRseeking = 1; < true or IRseeking = 0; < false) could be used to determine wether or not said missile can be defeated by flares.

There also exist IRL missiles that are much less decievable than most IR seekers (ex. UV duel seekers). Set a float value in the config (ex. IRdecievability = 0.15; < low, IRdecievability = 0.65; < standard) and factor that into the random success rate.

I know what you mean, but the default BIS engine is very limited in that area. People have been asking for new target sources and limits for ages. ArmA2's new capability has kicked off a discussion between UNN and I. We havent really gotten into the details but what you want probably is achievable, we were looking at something similar for anti radiation missiles and radar emitters.

The only problems I can see with the ideas is cross compatibility and MP issues. Its something we will probably look at in the future though. Until then maybe someone else might have other plans?

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Ah i think i understand a bit better now. The RKSL Flares system has always had this feature. RPGs etc do not trigger the flares, nor are they deflected. Only AA or SAMs are affected.

But how is it implemented? How does it decide to ignore it? Does it just check for unguided weapons? For example, say I want to make a scifi addon that is an upgraded FIM-92A with behaves exactly like a regular Stinger only I say it has a futuristic seeker that is immune to IR countermeasures. Can I make it immune to your flares? IMO even if said example isn't realistic you shouldn't rule out the need for such implementation.

I know what you mean, but the default BIS engine is very limited in that area. People have been asking for new target sources and limits for ages.

Again it doesn't have to be that detailed. Just a few floating point values in the config that your scripts look for and use when determining the countermeasures' probability of success.

---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 PM ----------

Let me try to explain this better. The goal here would be to create a set of standards so that addon makers can make their addons more compatable with eachother. Compatability is not just limited to my addon being able to be utilize your addon's features, but also my addon behaving properly (the way I want it to) with your addon.

[Fintroll 10]

Great system but could please make the flares look bit better, more realistic please.

Anyway waiting for this.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

But how is it implemented? How does it decide to ignore it? Does it just check for unguided weapons? For example, say I want to make a scifi addon that is an upgraded FIM-92A with behaves exactly like a regular Stinger only I say it has a futuristic seeker that is immune to IR countermeasures. Can I make it immune to your flares? IMO even if said example isn't realistic you shouldn't rule out the need for such implementation.

I think UNN is the one to answer your first question. Im not a scripter and everytime i try to explain how one of UNN's more technical scripts works i tend to make a balls of it. I'll point him at this thread and maybe he will answer you properly.

I see where you are coming from though. And I agree there is a need for that degree of flexibility. I just don't think there is a system available right now that caters for that level of realism. Its also going to require a reworking of all the missiles config classes for it to truly work ingame. Again I see that as a possible MP issue with the updated classes and the anti cheat measures... something to test properly though.

Let me try to explain this better. The goal here would be to create a set of standards so that addon makers can make their addons more compatable with eachother. Compatability is not just limited to my addon being able to be utilize your addon's features, but also my addon behaving properly (the way I want it to) with your addon.

Yeah I understand you but like i said those features aren't available yet but they may be in future. Its going to take some development first and I suspect a new way of looking at weapons and missiles and I can see a knock on effect with several other mods and projects.

Community acceptance is going to be interesting too...different teams have very different approaches to "standards". Its one of the reasons we have always been reluctant to force our systems on the player. We tend to just enable our own addons and give the option to others to add our features to their own projects.

Anyway thanks for the insight. Its something that i promise you UNN and I will be discussing.

Great system but could please make the flares look bit better, more realistic please.

Anyway waiting for this.

They probably wont change to be honest. We could use the BIS particle effects but they proved very laggy on several test machines with mid level specs. By using the ArmA1 particles we save 5-6 fps. Lets face it when you are flying around the last thing you want is a huge stutter at a key moment.

[Fintroll 10]

I think UNN is the one to answer your first question. Im not a scripter and everytime i try to explain how one of UNN's more technical scripts works i tend to make a balls of it. I'll point him at this thread and maybe he will answer you properly.

I see where you are coming from though. And I agree there is a need for that degree of flexibility. I just don't think there is a system available right now that caters for that level of realism. Its also going to require a reworking of all the missiles config classes for it to truly work ingame. Again I see that as a possible MP issue with the updated classes and the anti cheat measures... something to test properly though.

Yeah I understand you but like i said those features aren't available yet but they may be in future. Its going to take some development first and I suspect a new way of looking at weapons and missiles and I can see a knock on effect with several other mods and projects.

Community acceptance is going to be interesting too...different teams have very different approaches to "standards". Its one of the reasons we have always been reluctant to force our systems on the player. We tend to just enable our own addons and give the option to others to add our features to their own projects.

Anyway thanks for the insight. Its something that i promise you UNN and I will be discussing.

They probably wont change to be honest. We could use the BIS particle effects but they proved very laggy on several test machines with mid level specs. By using the ArmA1 particles we save 5-6 fps. Lets face it when you are flying around the last thing you want is a huge stutter at a key moment.

You got a point there sir, anyway cant wait this!! I really want those counter measures.

[manzilla 1]

You got a point there sir, anyway cant wait this!! I really want those counter measures.

This is damn good news. Their countermeasures were one of my favorite's in ArmA. The effects were wicked. A thing of beauty really.

[Smoot178 10]

Looking forward to the flares :D

[UNN 0]

But how is it implemented? How does it decide to ignore it? Does it just check for unguided weapons? For example, say I want to make a scifi addon that is an upgraded FIM-92A with behaves exactly like a regular Stinger only I say it has a futuristic seeker that is immune to IR countermeasures. Can I make it immune to your flares? IMO even if said example isn't realistic you shouldn't rule out the need for such implementation.

Yes you can, we basically do a check to say. Is it a missile we will include, then if it isn't, check to see if it's a missile we should exclude. After that, if we still don't know. we check the config. So again yes, you would add it to the list of missile to be excluded from the flares.

As for keeping a table of individual missile attributes, no not yet. ATM we want to establish if the basic concept works ok. But it's easy enough to add.

[Defunkt 431]

A lot of anticipation for this mod, keep us posted; if we can't have a release then news of it is the next best thing!

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Yes you can, we basically do a check to say. Is it a missile we will include, then if it isn't, check to see if it's a missile we should exclude. After that, if we still don't know. we check the config. So again yes, you would add it to the list of missile to be excluded from the flares.

As for keeping a table of individual missile attributes, no not yet. ATM we want to establish if the basic concept works ok. But it's easy enough to add.

So as I suspected, you are using a list of included/excluded missiles. The problem with this is that you have to keep updating the list. When you check the config though, what do you check for? Hopefully a specific flag to tell your scripts to exclude or include that specific missile, something that I can be specifically defined the missile's config...?

[UNN 0]

So as I suspected, you are using a list of included/excluded missiles. The problem with this is that you have to keep updating the list.

I'm not sure what your point is? Checking a list should be far quicker than checking the entire config each time the same type missile is fired at you? Obviously the list is going to contain all the valid missiles that come with Arma2. There is no need to keep checking the config of Arma's stinger?

As I said, we use a combination of both methods, that way you (the addon maker or mission designer) can override the config settings if so desired. Which is what you offered up before as an example of what should be included?

But again your not just limited to what's defined in the list. But checking for the correct missile types in the config is the last resort of our scripts.

In a nutshell, all the common missiles are identified as quickly as possible. Any new missile types are checked just once in a mission.

[Cionara 10]

Good luck guys hope we see some results in time =)