AA units, and why we hate them.

[Guest]

Hey fellas,

This is a problem i have seen brought up time and again in Arma 2, but it's never had its very own thread. It's not a bug or an issue, it's just a "feature".

Its those evil AA units! Be it a U.S Marine with a stinger, or a Russian Insurgent with a tripod, the AA units are simply Ridiculous. Firstly, for guided missiles why do aircraft have no warning's at all? You simply hear an explosion and your dead, simple as that.

In real life there would be all sorts of beeping and warnings and flares flying out the back of your chopper/plane. It's just a little frustrating in a game thats so realistic. It's as if your just not supposed to have air units, they are so unrealistically vulnerable.

The second issue, which most people don't seem to have mention'd, is the way in which AA units disable your aircraft. If you fire a guided missile, unless you are aiming ridiculously awful, or firing at an extremely fast moving aircraft, you will never miss. Not because the guidance system is too good, no not at all. Because if the missile comes withing 15 metres of your aircraft it just blows up, without even touching you.

Maybe this is realistic in some missiles, i am no expert on the matter. But i have seen alot of real life videos/stories where the AA missile has missed its target by mere inches, and not exploded. I'm sure you've heard many stories where a helicopter has quicly spun round to dodge a missile, or where a fighter jet has out maneuvered one by using good flying skills.

The matter of the fact is, in Arma 2, if someone fires an AA missile at you, it will 99% never miss, even if flies straight past you. It will simply explode when its within a certain radius of the vehicle.

I bring these issues up because i wan't to see what other people think of this. Is it infact realistic and i am wrong? Or do i have a point? If i do have a point, is anyone from BIS reading this who could adress the problem?

Aircraft gameplay would improve ten-fold if a realistic warning/flare/missile collision system was implemented, imo.

I'm just a bit fed up of getting killed every single time by a single AA missile.

Regards,

Rich.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I don't fly...

[GGTharos 10]

Its those evil AA units! Be it a U.S Marine with a stinger, or a Russian Insurgent with a tripod, the AA units are simply Ridiculous. Firstly, for guided missiles why do aircraft have no warning's at all? You simply hear an explosion and your dead, simple as that.

In real life there would be all sorts of beeping and warnings and flares flying out the back of your chopper/plane. It's just a little frustrating in a game thats so realistic. It's as if your just not supposed to have air units, they are so unrealistically vulnerable.

Because most aircraft are in fact NOT equipped with MAWS systems to warn them of impending doom. You actually have to LOOK for the launch.

On the other hand, you have plenty of guys hanging out the doors in some of those choppers to spot it ... and you should probably have flare launchers in a most of them, so there I agree.

However, realize that air unit combat is not and is not meant to be hugely realistic in ARMA2. It's not what ARMA2 is simulating.

The second issue, which most people don't seem to have mention'd, is the way in which AA units disable your aircraft. If you fire a guided missile, unless you are aiming ridiculously awful, or firing at an extremely fast moving aircraft, you will never miss. Not because the guidance system is too good, no not at all. Because if the missile comes withing 15 metres of your aircraft it just blows up, without even touching you.

Maybe this is realistic in some missiles, i am no expert on the matter. But i have seen alot of real life videos/stories where the AA missile has missed its target by mere inches, and not exploded. I'm sure you've heard many stories where a helicopter has quicly spun round to dodge a missile, or where a fighter jet has out maneuvered one by using good flying skills.

Stinger, Igla, and other similar missiles tend to not have proximity fuzes - they are hit-to-kill. On the other hand, they are accurate enough to attack cruise missiles, and a heli is a far larger target. While this isn't modeled well in ARMA2, again, ARMA2 simulates ground combat, not air combat ;)

Lastly, it is physically impossible for a helicopter to outmaneuver an air to air missile or a SAM. It may manage to defeat the guidance system and then get out of the missile's way, but actually outmaneuver a guiding AAM/SAM? No.

The matter of the fact is, in Arma 2, if someone fires an AA missile at you, it will 99% never miss, even if flies straight past you. It will simply explode when its within a certain radius of the vehicle.

I bring these issues up because i wan't to see what other people think of this. Is it infact realistic and i am wrong? Or do i have a point? If i do have a point, is anyone from BIS reading this who could adress the problem?

Aircraft gameplay would improve ten-fold if a realistic warning/flare/missile collision system was implemented, imo.

I'm just a bit fed up of getting killed every single time by a single AA missile.

Regards,

Rich.

More like they just need to implement flare launchers, and that'll be that. The AH-1Z has a MAWS, and I think maybe the UH-1Y does too, but it might not be particularly easy to model.

[SFJackBauer 10]

Fly below the horizon and exercise SA.

If you fly low and fast, using terrain as cover, infantry will have a hard time locking on you on these few moments you'll be on their LOS.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Let me also state that AA is supposed to deny enemy aircraft from an area... the better it does that the better (that sounds weird). Hey you don't want the aircraft to be uber overpowered like (dare I say it) in BF2. You shouldn't really be flying with enemy AA around anyway.

As for realism... there are many levels of realism. I think it should be up to the mission maker to decide the level of realism... along with gameplay, etc...

[galzohar 31]

Yes, IRL you definitely do not want to do anything that can result in SAMs of any kind being launched at you. At least that fact is properly simulated in the game, even though everything around it is way off.

[Spudeater 0]

Some explode on contact while others are fused.

Some get close and explode a shaped warhead that fire what amounts to a shootgun blast ment to rip the aircraft up.

[randir14 10]

I like it. It might be annoying to the pilots but I think it's pretty awesome to be in a fully loaded helicopter and get hit by a missile out of nowhere, it just kind of adds a sense of fear that you can be shot down at any time. If the pilot is good he can autorotate the helicopter to safety. I agree about adding flares though.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Sorry but you should be happy that BIS didnt implement S-300/400 systems or even to improve Tunguska to attack simultaneausly 2-3 targets.

If you have problems with AA manpads, stationary platforms or vehicles - you should be able to solve them. Search & destroy the highest threat first or send some units to take them out. ;)

Would be good to see working warfare radar buildings (AntiAir, Artillery) too. So player and AI could use it similar to UAV vehicle.

[S7_Mega 10]

The ACE mod incorporated a flare system, looking forward to their release.

Modern aircraft in the US inventory do have threat warning systems, standard equipment as well as the ECM pod that you see on the win tip of the A-10.

When any radar system locks onto your aircraft the RWR system gives a tone. This is the display that's not active on the upper left of the cockpit in the A-10. Passive seaker heads may not generate a warning tone but active seeker heads will.

I was surprised BIS didn't include the Arma1 work done by the community in this respect.

ACE rules.

[Fintroll 10]

If BIS dont simulate air combat, it should not be there. Add flares, the current fly models are absolute joke, the handleing of aircraft is very very very unrealistic and without flares you should not even have implemented any air units.

Shame on BIS, this is only feature in game that makes me mad. Please make those flares and tweak air physics.

[Guest]

My biggest issue is why BIS haven't cottoned on to what the community want after Arma 1. Ok, Arma 2 is fantastic, but after seeing how successful ace mod was, did none of them think "oh wow, lets put that in the new game!"?

Odd.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Flying is for droids.

[jakerod 254]

If BIS dont simulate air combat, it should not be there. Add flares, the current fly models are absolute joke, the handleing of aircraft is very very very unrealistic and without flares you should not even have implemented any air units.

Shame on BIS, this is only feature in game that makes me mad. Please make those flares and tweak air physics.

Yeah you're right the game would be so much more fun without helicopters or aircraft. And while we're at it they don't simulate tanks too well either or even other vehicles. Let's just take out vehicles altogether. Then we can have a nice and fun infantry simulator where the only thing we have to worry about are men and we get to walk around the 225km^2 of terrain.</sarcasm>

Point being, I would rather have a non-realistic aircraft than no aircraft at all. Granted I don't want the Millenium Falcon flying around but the helicopters and aircraft are close enough for me.

If they can implement it then that would be awesome but I am okay without it. The problem is I am sure not every aircraft has the same type of counter-measure system so if they just give a basic one to all of them you guys know damn well that you will be complaining about that next until this turns into MFS.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Jakerod

[whisper 0]

Most missiles in game are passive seekers and will not generate warnings on most modern aircrafts, I'm really not sure the most modern launch detection devices (which are the only one able to alert for a IR seeking missile incoming) are currently serviced on the choppers and planes depicted in ArmA2

The only vehicles which should generate a warning (in fact, 2 warnings, a research radar one, and a lock/guidance radar one) are Shilka and Tungunska if I'm not mistaken

The flares are definitely missing though.

Last point : missile are called missiles for a reason. Perhaps Stinger is a contact fuze missile, but most of the air targetting missiles have proximity fuse. An undetected Strela/Igla launched in parameters is undeniably a huge threat

[Jimmy the Saint 10]

*nods* In any case, the velocity and airspeed of jet fighters is in relation to the combat zone of ArmA2 too fast anyway! But I rather have (not 100% realistic) vehicles in the game then none at all. The question of what is realistic in computer games and what's not is a discussion which can't be answered at all, because at some point there's always a border reached, when everything just becomes a delusion.

[STALKERGB 6]

i was under the impression that a flares/counter-measures system was in the game but BIS had implemented it yet (future patch maybe).

Although i do agree that i wouldn't like to fly my helicopter into a SAM heavy area, and this essentially is half the use of a SAM launcher, just as much of a deterrant as a weapon.

[JackandBlood 10]

single man operated missiles simply shouldnt work well. I hate to cite the same reference over and over, but I'm a civilian I learned so much from the one book: Not a Good Day to Die. The stingers we gave the Mujahadeen(sp) are finicky and required extensive maintenance. They played no part in shooting down the choppers during Anaconda. An AC-130 as it left the battle was fired upon by two man portable guided missiles. There was no warning system, one of the crew just simply saw the missile incoming. The second missile was not seen at all by the crew but by observers on the ground. Both missiles failed at altitude and dropped harmlessly. No mention of the AC-130 dropping any sort of countermeasures. A 3rd projectile was fired at the gunship, was an RPG, air burst not even close to the altitude.

So essentially, the only man portable guided missile that has ever scored a kill happened almost two decades ago. What is doing the job are your simple RPGs set to air burst at typical helicopter altitudes or direct hits on helis as they perform infantry insertion or extraction.

[whisper 0]

Kosovo says otherwise, A10 modified their whole attack concept because of low threat AA. A whole army changing tells me more than a single incident

FYI MANPADS require quite a training to be used effectively. Not something seen often in recent conflicts where the ennemy is mostly "untrained" to modern equipements. When they are not, they are preventively carpet bombed

[JackandBlood 10]

When was Kosovo and what kind of man fired missiles caused the incident? im on vacation and been having mojitos, dont remember much. Oh ya, and starwars reference thank you! mmmm, Paradiso...

[Defunkt 431]

If BIS dont simulate air combat, it should not be there. Add flares, the current fly models are absolute joke, the handleing of aircraft is very very very unrealistic and without flares you should not even have implemented any air units.

Shame on BIS, this is only feature in game that makes me mad. Please make those flares and tweak air physics.

Don't be a knob, the game already provides 2x the content of comparable titles and never set itself up as a flight simulator; there is more than enough fidelity to represent the influence of air-power on land battles and that's more than OFP2 will be including. If you want to play a hardcore flight-sim go buy one, despite never having been much interested before I had so much fun with the GLT F-16 mod I picked up a cheap copy of LOMACS. The problem there is that the land/sea component is all together absent and I'm just not interested enough in flight-sims alone to want to invest so heavily in such a narrow simulation.

Clearly there is a growing desire for more complete air-combat and there are initiatives under way already, much of what we all desire will be made by the community and before very long (as those of us with a little patience measure things anyway). ArmA 2 with a few community upgrades is all the flight-sim I actually want especially when it exists within a complete battlefield.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Meh. Simulation or air-combat definitely isn't ArmA's strong suit, but neither is simulation of anti-aircraft systems; and the more complicated BIS make them, the harder it is to balance the other.

Fact is, for every time I've been shot down by AA in ArmA I've had half a dozen incidents where my entire squad has been completely raped by a single aircraft and I'd have been thankful for a bit of AA support. Aircraft piss me off when I'm ground-pounding, AA pisses me off when I'm in the air.

Personally, I feel if there there is a genuine over-abundance of AA in a mission; it's either the fault of the mission designer, or the fault of your team-mates on the ground for not clearing it.

[JackandBlood 10]

Ahhh 1999, so then just the one decade smarty pants. And im reading an S-125 AA defense net, can you carry that on your back?

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:22 PM ----------

so then my original argument, man portable AA missles should be a crap shoot at best right then? Throw some stats at me Whisper, im not seeing where your post contradicts any of my claims.

[-Paladin- 10]

Meh. Simulation or air-combat definitely isn't ArmA's strong suit, but neither is simulation of anti-aircraft systems; and the more complicated BIS make them, the harder it is to balance the other.

Fact is, for every time I've been shot down by AA in ArmA I've had half a dozen incidents where my entire squad has been completely raped by a single aircraft and I'd have been thankful for a bit of AA support. Aircraft piss me off when I'm ground-pounding, AA pisses me off when I'm in the air.

Personally, I feel if there there is a genuine over-abundance of AA in a mission; it's either the fault of the mission designer, or the fault of your team-mates on the ground for not clearing it.

Its the "Ultimate Warsimulation" not a FPS, in a simulation there is NO BALANCEbalance is for boons. Even when this is simulating infantry combat Arma 2 has to simulate it accurate, vehicles and aeroplanes, this are the threads that a infantryman will encounter and this are the threads you have to fight.If not change the cover title form arma 2 in to "anther casual FPS" and dont lie.

ROFL balance,go and play WoW.

[jakerod 254]

Its the "Ultimate Warsimulation" not a FPS, in a simulation there is NO BALANCEbalance is for boons. Even when this is simulating infantry combat Arma 2 has to simulate it accurate, vehicles and aeroplanes, this are the threads that a infantryman will encounter and this are the threads you have to fight.If not change the cover title form arma 2 in to "anther casual FPS" and dont lie.

ROFL balance,go and play WoW.

You do have to balance them though. There is no way you are going to be able to make it so that it is 100% the way it works in real life. If you did that you would have to model every [known] law of physics.

You can't just make it so that the counter measures work 100% of the time or that the missile hits 100% of the time. You have to balance it some how. You pretty much have to make it so that it works a certain percentage of the time and if you make either one of those 100% then the game sucks because you either can't fly or you are entirely defenseless against aircraft.

Now ideally you would have other factors like velocity of the aircraft and things like that in there but at some point the engine can't model all the details required so you have to balance it somehow.