Why a-10 two hellfire?

[chops 111]

I was going to suggest that but then thought it still doesn't get around the problem of the radar which is the main issue imo. Perhaps something along the lines of the pilot having to put x-hairs over the target to lock it. I can't even remember if the A10 has a radar and I played that almost exclusively in Lock On.

Anyway the current system is just so awful and over powered that maybe they should just remove the attack aircraft.

In LockOn, and as far as I know, in the real thing, to fire a Maverick you have to move a seeker head cross-hair onto the target, which is shown on a screen in the cockpit. From what I understand, having this kind of internal camera type thing is not possible in the current engine. BIS could perhaps get around it using a IR turret type thing on the A-10. But I think turrents are not possible on planes either.

At any rate, in the A-10 the pilot has to visually acquire targets and lock them as described above. There is no magic radar that shows bright red blobs.

Making the acquisition of targets more realistic would add a lot to the immersion of the game I reckon. An A-10 pilot would need a lot more help from a Forward Air Controller (as per IRL) to find and correctly engage ground targets.

[Relemar 10]

i agree, BI developer who replied go with your team and make a good targetting system, too easy at the mo.

this is what seperate ArmA 2 from being the best and one of the best..

[galzohar 31]

If they're going to make realistic target acquisition they're also going to need to give weapons their RL ranges as well. When you can only fire a maverick from 2-3KM you might pass the target by the time you manage to do all the required actions, which is obviously not a problem IRL where you can fire from much further away.

I'm all for more realism, but some realistic features require the "whole pack" and won't work if implemented by themselves.

[Apocal 10]

If they're going to make realistic target acquisition they're also going to need to give weapons their RL ranges as well. When you can only fire a maverick from 2-3KM you might pass the target by the time you manage to do all the required actions, which is obviously not a problem IRL where you can fire from much further away.

I'm all for more realism, but some realistic features require the "whole pack" and won't work if implemented by themselves.

As easily acceptable substitute would be a Maverick that had to wait 10-30 seconds before it would go from Acquired to Locked. Real life, it takes about that long (occasionally longer) for the IRMAV to 'learn' what it's target looks like.

[galzohar 31]

Except IRL you can also fire it from 10km, while in game only 2-3km or so (more or less depending on some unclear parameters). In the game you would pass the target in 30s, making mavericks useless, and still very unrealistic (they are not useless IRL). That's what I meant when I said some realistic features need to come as a "package" or they won't work.

[Apocal 10]

Except IRL you can also fire it from 10km, while in game only 2-3km or so (more or less depending on some unclear parameters). In the game you would pass the target in 30s, making mavericks useless, and still very unrealistic (they are not useless IRL). That's what I meant when I said some realistic features need to come as a "package" or they won't work.

You can certainly lock on at 6 or 7km in-game and use that.

[galzohar 31]

You can certainly lock on at 6 or 7km in-game and use that.

In game it seems to sometimes work, sometimes not.

[Apocal 10]

In game it seems to sometimes work, sometimes not.

Line-of-sight.

[galzohar 31]

On one hand you're right that it is line of sight, but on the other hand it works in a very weird way. Even a little bush can obstruct line of sight, for example this obstructs the tank for an A-10 flying at ~1100m altitude at 6km (when it's in front of the bush the A-10 can lock):

Here's a better one:

Keep in mind the A-10 is coming directly from the south and flying at 1100m. Any more exposure seems to make the tank lockable, but I doubt he should be unlockable in the 2nd image and maybe even the first.

[Apocal 10]

Line-of-sight is computed by the tank's hull. Put a tank hull down behind a Jersey barrier and enemy tanks and infantry will never shoot at you, assuming that they are on level ground. At any rate galozhar, why are you so obsessed with finding reasons it can't be done without unrealistically massive changes?

[galzohar 31]

I'm just saying that the current locking system is a lot more messed up than a simple "it's too easy". Currently it's often too easy, yet sometimes impossible, and in an actual game you will often not be able to lock before 2-3KM even when flying high for the reason stated above. Making locking take 10-30 seconds will make any jet that uses those missiles useless, and make every helo have to come to a halt to use them without getting shot down.

[Apocal 10]

I'm just saying that the current locking system is a lot more messed up than a simple "it's too easy". Currently it's often too easy, yet sometimes impossible, and in an actual game you will often not be able to lock before 2-3KM even when flying high for the reason stated above.

Yeah... that happens in real life too. If you can't get line-of-sight from sensor to target, all the fancy IR tricks the Maverick does won't matter. The only anti-tank weapon with a dead reckoning (lock on without line-of-sight) I'm aware of is the Javelin, and it's dead reckoning mode works in game.

Making locking take 10-30 seconds will make any jet that uses those missiles useless, and make every helo have to come to a halt to use them without getting shot down.

1. Jets don't cover 6-7km in 10-15 seconds unless they are really hauling ass.

2. Helos don't carry Mavericks.

[galzohar 31]

AFAIK it's the same issue with hellfires and mavericks.

IRL I doubt a bush that covers some of the tank's hull and nothing more will "break" your LOS, for either hellfire or maverick.

Just to avoid calculation errors, spawning in the editor in an A-10 and not any controls, simply looking at the map, I covered 1KM in 8 seconds. Not 6-7km which is not what I was saying, but definitely cover the 2-3km that currently allow a lock on tanks that are anywhere near bushes.

I do agree we need a better locking interface (just like any vehicle interface needs to be improved, really), but we also need a little bush to not stop a maverick. Which btw reminds me that shooting randomly through a gate (with "poles" covering about 1/10 of its area), ~1/2 the shots will go through because the game considers them much thicker than they actually appear. Maybe it's also the same for bushes?

Edited August 24, 2009 by galzohar

[Apocal 10]

AFAIK it's the same issue with hellfires and mavericks.

No idea, don't the Cobra much.

IRL I doubt a bush that covers some of the tank's hull and nothing more will "break" your LOS, for either hellfire or maverick.

You'd be surprised. But overall, it shouldn't happen as much.

Just to avoid calculation errors, spawning in the editor in an A-10 and not any controls, simply looking at the map, I covered 1KM in 8 seconds. Not 6-7km which is not what I was saying, but definitely cover the 2-3km that currently allow a lock on tanks that are anywhere near bushes.

It's a reasonable depiction of the real life tradeoff between having a great field of fire (sitting exposed on a hill) and having great concealment (sitting behind a pair of narrow trees).

I do agree we need a better locking interface (just like any vehicle interface needs to be improved, really), but we also need a little bush to not stop a maverick. Which btw reminds me that shooting randomly through a gate (with "poles" covering about 1/10 of its area), ~1/2 the shots will go through because the game considers them much thicker than they actually appear. Maybe it's also the same for bushes?

It's not that. Line-of-sight is calculated from the tank's hull. You can have 100% of the turret swinging around, engaging and the enemy AI will not see you if they are on level ground.

Certainly agree that aspect could use improvement.

[galzohar 31]

It's not even "it's the tank hull" issue, because you can see in my image that 1/2 the tank's hull was visible. It's probably a certain point (middle?) of the tank's hull that's taken into account for LOS considerations.

I wonder if such a position will also render the tank invisible to the AI... I've already noticed AI tanks in hull-down positions not firing, but I did even imagine making a connection to this until you said it.