Mando Missile ArmA for ArmA 2

[mandoble 1]

Hi Ebden:

A) I dont experience any lag with that mission. But just to make sure, can you try it without anyother addons or mods to ensure there are no potential interferences?

B) I will increase the aera to look for laser spots, I guess this might be the problem you are having as your procedure is correct.

C) Yes, that sound is intentional and indicates the vehicle is not ready to fire a missile (because it might be reloading it). The volumen is that because the same should be audible when in planes and choppers with all the engine noise.

[TheCrusader 10]

Hi all,

I had the same problem with the laser designator, try aiming at the ground next to the tank and transmit (then it will accept the target immediately for me) and then target the tank while the missile is on final approach.

It seems that the laser spot is not transmitted when aimed on a game world object (tested with tanks and buildings) but will work just fine when directed at the ground or trees. Once the missile is in flight everything is fine, regardless at what you aim.

Hope this helps.

Edited November 9, 2009 by TheCrusader

[ricnunes 0]

2 - This delay is there for gameplay purposes and to force the player to learn when to drop flares, in fact, if wrongly dropped, 1 flare has the same effect as 1000, and if correctly dropper, a single flare will work.

First of all, thanks for your replies Mando.

Well this is a bit diferent to what it's in reality. In reality when one aircraft is flying over a suspected area (where there could be SAMs) it usually drops several flares in a fast sequence as a preventive tactic against SAMs that could be launched (or against ones that were already launched) against that aircraft. In real life many flares are in fact much more effective than only a few, specially now that missile seekers are much more effective and resistant against countermesures.

For example the Soviets developed a tactic in the later part of their involvement in Afghanistan (Afghan war 1979-1989) where several aircraft at high altitudes would drop an authentic "rain of flares" in order to ensure a safer skies for aircraft flying at lower altitudes (such as Helicopters).

So droping many flares prevently (even before a SAM being launched) is a extrememely effective tactic (perhaps the most effective tactic against heat-seeking missiles?), but perhaps it's the case that it isn't possible to model this in ArmA/ArmA2?

And by playing even further with your Mando Missile addon, I do have an another sugestion:

- Is it possible to implement (in the future) a ground stabilized camera (the Hellfire camera)? Without a ground stabilized camera it's extremelly hard to aim the hellfire missiles even when the helicopter is doing slow manouvers (currently it's only possible to aim properly when the helicopter it's on a full hover).

For the rest, I must say that this addon is really looking awesome! Thanks for your work and for sharing it with us, Mando.

[Ebden 10]

Hi Ebden:

A) I dont experience any lag with that mission. But just to make sure, can you try it without anyother addons or mods to ensure there are no potential interferences?

B) I will increase the aera to look for laser spots, I guess this might be the problem you are having as your procedure is correct.

C) Yes, that sound is intentional and indicates the vehicle is not ready to fire a missile (because it might be reloading it). The volumen is that because the same should be audible when in planes and choppers with all the engine noise.

Thanks for the note. I saw an earlier post about conflicts with CBA. I was running that addon when testing. I'll leave it off next time and see if there is any difference in lag.

As far as the LD maximum range, I found this link that might help determine the proper range. I don't know a thing about the gear, what model laser designator Arma 2 includes, but it looks a little like the AN/PED-1. Maybe the two units (PAQ/PED) both have the same range? If so, then 1500m effective targeting would be the figure to use. It seems unrealistic to permit handheld laser designation across multiple kms in game. If you incorporate the UH-1Y laser, it may deserve a longer laser range due to improved equipment on the helo. It seems easy enough unless Arma2 restricts an easy modificationby using the same laser desig script for both the helo and handheld.

Edit: Ricnunes' preceding post went up while I was writing this post. I agree with his comment on flares. I understand Mando's attempt to maintain balance and proper use by limiting flare release, but acceptable scenarios for limiting flare use are quicky overshot in a game so freeform. Example: I had a hell of a time avoiding two close incoming missiles with only one flare to use between them. If spacing was greater, sure, but at the time I dropped my flare and finished my first jinx from the first missile, the second missile's total range was just coming into the RWR. No chance.

On second thought, bad example. Maybe it's a good tactical twist for the opposition (use two valuable AA missiles, but gain a significant increase in hit probability). I'm no combat sim pilot, but I did look at some of the websites for flight junkies, and there is plenty more to learn toward sim flight tactics now that this addon is nearly finished.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Ebden

[TheCrusader 10]

Hi ricnunes,

I think the "preventive" flares you talk about when entering a mission area are in fact dispensed at a very slow rate due to the amount available to the airplane/chopper in question, as you need loads of them (best have one up all the time as u get no RWR on a heatseeker missile ;).

At least thats how its done in DCS:BlackShark.

Second IMHO ARMA2's air systems are bound to be a bit "gamy" as the engine limitations do not allow for proper standoff ranges especially with modern planes.

Just my 0,02€ on this matter ;)

[mandoble 1]

Ricnunes, all about flares is gameplay related. In ArmA2 your situational awareness is almost null counting only with your view and quite limited distance view distance, hence the fact that all planes and choppers have RWR and IR missiles are displayed there too. The tactic you describe is used in RL because there is no way (except visual) to detect IR shots. This is not really needed here because of the presence of the RWR, also if you are facing Mando SAMS, before the missile launch you will get a radar lock warning.

Said that I will add that in RL that tactic of dropping flares while advancing is effective only against small and old portable IR weapons, and only if the missile is fired from the back of the plane at ground level. In fact, this will ensure your destruction if you have an enemy plane at your six firing an IR missile as the flare trail will drive the missile directly to your engine nozzles, also that flare trail will never protect you enough against a headon shot. Add there the impact in game performance.

I could remove the RWR and change the flares system, but then survival chances would be way lower. So, gameplaywise, ATM it will remain this way.

EDIT:

Said that, I will reduce the min time between flares from 2 secs to 1 for next beta ;)

Edited November 9, 2009 by Mandoble

[luckyhendrix 10]

But I think that lower survival chances would be better, planes are too powerfull IMO in arma II , it would force plane to fly higher, be more carefull and use the maximum stand off range for their weapons

[Drew 10]

yea at 8000 meters away:rolleyes:

[TheCrusader 10]

@Luckyhendrix

If planes are too powerful just put some MandoAA, its veeery deadly, as far as I can tell.

[Defunkt 431]

I have to say I do find the idea of a 'hardcore' mode intriguing. No RWR for IR but more flares that may be dispensed at will (this would probably require some abstration/combining under the hood to avoid a performance hit). Modern craft fitted with an IR counter-measures package might also enjoy a greater 'always-on' resistance and perhaps launch detection. It is true that ArmA will never model real world ranges but as long as range and speed are scaled down consistently across all elements the net loss to the simulation should hopefully be minimised.

[luckyhendrix 10]

Ye but I'm considering this for MP usage with the most realisctic possible gear for each side so it may not be possible.

For instance US Marines only have manpads and Avenger for their AA defences these are only IR seakers with limited range , whereas the russian forces have Tunguska radar guided and with a very long range .Thus making manpads and ground launched Ir missile passive would rebalance things

Edited November 9, 2009 by luckyhendrix

[Ebden 10]

But I think that lower survival chances would be better, planes are too powerfull IMO in arma II , it would force plane to fly higher, be more carefull and use the maximum stand off range for their weapons

I agree that lower survival chances for air are good to incorporate into a fun game title, too many times a good pilot ruins the fun for other players (BF2, for example). The difference with Arma 2 is the simulator argument. It depends how you approach the game, but as a simulator of a real battle theatre, air support is one of the most devastating weapons in an arsenal. Mando wanted to provide the tools to help that air be the weapon it is supposed to be in a simulator, since Arma2 vanilla only provides the simplest interpretation of flight weapons.

It is the mission maker's responsibility to balance his or her scenario for the immersion level he or she intends. This could mean providing only the one attack helo instead of 5, or turning off vehicle respawns, or changing any of the other elements incorporated to accelerate game play at the cost of realism. (there's value in both, I'm not taking sides). What none of us want to see are mission makers who take Mando's addon and create painfully unbalanced scenarios. What that means is we need to make the missions that implement mma as it was intended.

Like TheCrusader said, don't forget that Mando's AA is wicked compared to the stock Arma 2 AA. Mando AA v. Mando-enabled air support, (when flown by 90% of us in the game), will decrease our survivability big-time. This addon, when combined with proper missions, will build a niche for skilled pilots AND coordinated ground movement (to destroy the enemy AA for effective air support) eventually forcing a higher level of cooperative play.

Time for me to get reading Mr. Murray's guide.

@luckyhendrix-I just saw your second post (#61). Although I haven't made a mission to my name, I'll vouch for some very realistic user scenarios in this game already. The best realism-dedicated MP maps (versus realism-oriented) will be those that pay homage to the game engine limitations. I'm sure you can dream up a realistic scenario that uses MMA, provides all the toys that would be appropriate to the scenario, and still feels balanced and challenging.

Don't forget how 'realistic' many battles versus the USMC tend to finish. U.S. military air superiority is formidable, and should be in a realistic mission as well...but what happens when your F-16 has neutralized all air patrols and no AA threats remain? A few choice bombs perhaps, but it's tough to combat guerilla tactics from the air alone. If you want to clear a position of all opfor, then it's boots on.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Ebden

[mandoble 1]

Ebden, you are 100% right, balance is 100% responsibility of the mission editor. I added there a default setup with the new gamelogic, but a mission editor can use his own setup and his own systems.

About MMA airpower vs MMA defenses, try mma_test_ccip_addon.utes where you will be facing only two enemy launchers (and not quite effective ones). Now you can simply open init.sqf and change the value of mando_minchaffdist to change the overal difficulty level of the mission. Mando Missile systems also accept a parameter of resistance to flares, you can create missiles that simply cannot be evaded, or missiles that will be evaded easily, also quite inaccurate missiles, or quite accurate ones etc.

EDIT: The most valuable planes there (not included by the new gamelogic BTW) are SEAD ones, these using HARM type missiles. ArmA doesnt have any, but you can create systems just using virtual missiles.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Mandoble

[TheCrusader 10]

@luckyhendrix

you make a very good point, but you have to remember that launchers, which are like the tunguska are active radar emitters and can be targetted by HARM missiles, while an avenger cannot (form testing you get no mando "target box" around it using standard missiles, as long as the engine is off) .

Still the magic radar would have to be eliminated for this to be really effective (hate it personally).

Cheers

Crusader

Edit: forgot, how about lifting some patriots or hawks from mandos demo missions?

[mandoble 1]

Now that Gnat released his russian aircraft carrier it is time to see it in all its glory ;)

MMA Kuznetsov CV test mission (Gnat's Kuznetsov addon required).

This includes a prototype of Mando Gun for ArmA 2.

Here the Kuznetsov engages enemy planes and ships automatically.

[ricnunes 0]

Ricnunes, all about flares is gameplay related. In ArmA2 your situational awareness is almost null counting only with your view and quite limited distance view distance, hence the fact that all planes and choppers have RWR and IR missiles are displayed there too. The tactic you describe is used in RL because there is no way (except visual) to detect IR shots. This is not really needed here because of the presence of the RWR, also if you are facing Mando SAMS, before the missile launch you will get a radar lock warning.

Said that I will add that in RL that tactic of dropping flares while advancing is effective only against small and old portable IR weapons, and only if the missile is fired from the back of the plane at ground level. In fact, this will ensure your destruction if you have an enemy plane at your six firing an IR missile as the flare trail will drive the missile directly to your engine nozzles, also that flare trail will never protect you enough against a headon shot. Add there the impact in game performance.

I could remove the RWR and change the flares system, but then survival chances would be way lower. So, gameplaywise, ATM it will remain this way.

EDIT:

Said that, I will reduce the min time between flares from 2 secs to 1 for next beta ;)

Hi Mando,

First I want to say that having a "RWR" that detects incoming IR missiles is more realistic than you may inicially think of -> Most of modern combat helicopters (and all in the future, I 'm sure of) are already carrying MWS (Missile Warning Systems) which are usually passive heat-sensitive systems that detects incoming missiles (don't matter if they are Radar, IR or Laser guided or simply unguided like an RPG).

So an aircraft equiped with a MWS system will definitly detect an incoming IR guided missile and I know that for example the AH-1Z is equiped with such system.

Of course older aircraft (80's/90's and older) wouldn't be able to detect IR missiles and the only way to detect an incoming IR missile would be like you said, thru visual contact but in ArmA2 we are modeling a near future combat scenario and therefore most combat helos should be equiped with a system that models a MWS (Missiled Warning SYstem).

Regarding the fact that being able to launch Flares in a fast sequence would unbalance gameplay I totally disagree because of the following:

- If you launch Flares in a fast sequence it will have a "negative side effect" which is that you'll depleat or empty your flares much, much faster. Which means that either you have to get back to base sooner thus limiting the air support ability or keep flying (without or with very few flares) and face the obvious consequences. So I believe that there's no unbalance in here but perhaps even a better "balance".

But if lots of flares have an impact in game performance, than that's a totally diferent story which I fully understand.

I think that reducing the time between flares from 2 secs to 1 will be a very good thing, thanks for implementing it Mando.

[RedRage 0]

But I think that lower survival chances would be better, planes are too powerfull IMO in arma II , it would force plane to fly higher, be more carefull and use the maximum stand off range for their weapons

Planes are not powerful enough IMHO. We are talking about 30-90+ million dollar pieces of machinery piloted by most "expensive" graduates of military establishment.

Fast-movers are already too slow, lack any sort of engine thrust, real countermeasures or evasive maneuvers (well you can do them, it's just that they are useless for all intensive purposes).

SU-25 should be a beast for low attack runs, and yet there is barely enough power in the engines for 1 good attack run, before having to "recharge" air speed just not to crash. Most aircraft handle like flying bricks atm.

[whisper 0]

One of the most anticipated work hit the ground for A2. Thanks for the release, Sir.

Is an addon-free version envisionned (or simply possible)?

[mandoble 1]

Yes Whisper, script suite (same as 2.3 for ArmA1), but probably not during the open beta.

For these concerned about countermeasures, remember that aside of flares your plane might be equipped also with ECM (currently it affects HUD systems, later it will affect automatic launchers and MCCs too). Also your plane might be stealth so detection chances are way lower or null (currently it is the case of F35B).

[[aps]gnat 28]

Hi Mandoble,

Got a problem, on multiple torpedo launches (either multiple vehicles or 1 vehicle multi launches) I'm getting most torpedo's self destructing in early after launch.

Any ideas whats happening?

I increased the torpedo armor, but that didnt change anything.

_sub = _this select 0;

_target = _this select 1;

_launcher = objNull;

_missilebody = "GNT_5365KE";

_vangle = -1.5;

_speedini = 20;

_speedmax = 36;

_acceleration = 8;

_boomrange = 15;

_activerange = 6000;

_modeinit = 2;

_cruisealt = 80;

_boomscript = "mando_missiles\warheads\mando_missileheadtorp.sqf";

_smokescript = "mando_missiles\exhausts\mando_torpedowater2a.sqf";

_soundrsc = "";

_sounddur = 49;

_endurance = 160;

_terrainavoidance = false;

_updatefreq = 1;

_delayinit = 0;

_controltime = 0;

_detectable = false;

_debug = true;

_launchscript = "";

_hagility = 35;

_vagility = 0.1;

_accuracy = 1;

_intercept = true;

_scanarch = 180;

_scanarcv = 65;

_offsety = -1;

[_launcher, _missilebody, [(_sub ModelToWorld [0,35,-10]) select 0,(_sub ModelToWorld [0,35,-10]) select 1,(_sub ModelToWorld [0,35,-10]) select 2], getDir _sub, _vangle, _speedini, _speedmax, _acceleration, _target, _boomrange, _activerange, _modeinit, _cruisealt, _boomscript, _smokescript, _soundrsc, _sounddur, _endurance, _terrainavoidance, _updatefreq, _delayinit, _controltime, _detectable, _debug, _launchscript,_hagility, _vagility, _accuracy, _intercept, _scanarch, _scanarcv,_offsety] execVM "mando_missiles\mando_missile.sqf";

[mandoble 1]

Yes, you are using mando_torpedowater2a.sqf which tetonates the torpedo when speed decreases (which should happen when the torpedo hits something). But for some reason speed command returns weird values underwater, so it might detonate even when traveling at constant real speed. You may try with mando_torpedowater1a.sqf, which is the one used by the MH60S torpedoes. Anyway, tell me if there is a way to locate you online, I have no luck at all with messenger ;)

[Dwarden 1125]

i was wondering is there any visual representation in HUD of damage done to vehicle (like missing info, malfunctioning info, visual glitches) ...

ideally auto based on damage level and also via script call for mission makers (loss of power, equipment malfunction, emp ... ) ...

[Ebden 10]

i was wondering is there any visual representation in HUD of damage done to vehicle (like missing info, malfunctioning info, visual glitches) ...

ideally auto based on damage level and also via script call for mission makers (loss of power, equipment malfunction, emp ... ) ...

You might be able to borrow something from the KA-52. Its electronics will go cross-eyed when damaged, visible via the HUD flashing (intermittent loss of signal), and the control monitors go green. I think other lights shut off as well. Associated weapons are then no longer available, like the vihr (vihktr?).

I don't think there's too much flexibility though, nearly every time a mando missle landed a punch in the demo missions I was dead, no falling gracefully, no ejecting, just dead.

[mandoble 1]

Dwarden, not at the moment, while this might be easy to implement. For example, a loss of power might directly imply a no way to turn on ECM. Also HUD blinking randomly effect can be implemented easily. I can experiment with this, while in current beta state it would have a low priority.

Ebden, in these demos the missiles used have a quite small proximity detonation range, which means if the missile gets close to you it will get so close that it will explode almost inside your plane, so in most cases the damage will be always critical. But this might be changed at mission level increasing the detonation proximity range or using weaker warhead scripts.

[luckyhendrix 10]

Planes are not powerful enough IMHO. We are talking about 30-90+ million dollar pieces of machinery piloted by most "expensive" graduates of military establishment.

Fast-movers are already too slow, lack any sort of engine thrust, real countermeasures or evasive maneuvers (well you can do them, it's just that they are useless for all intensive purposes).

SU-25 should be a beast for low attack runs, and yet there is barely enough power in the engines for 1 good attack run, before having to "recharge" air speed just not to crash. Most aircraft handle like flying bricks atm.

Actualy if planes tend not to crash is because of ,

-first of all pilots are carefull ,they've been trained to be carefull.

-Theyr're never alone ,no air operation implies only one aircraft at least they're linked with ground units

-We never saw an IRL full scale war like it's simulated in ARMA II , Today conflict tend to be asymetrical with one side having difficulties to get state of the art weapons , (like SAM or manpads for instance)

If we imagine a conflicts implying a marines corps versus some russian mechanized bataillon with support from a nearby airbase. During the first days, airbattle would rage at high intensity, this would result in one side having superiority on the other: this mean having destroyed a vast majority of their CAP airplanes and SAM sites.

The side wich has lost the air warfare would have to rely on manpads and mobile SAM to force enemies aircrafts to stay high so that they can't be very accurate.

With my very little experience (comming from research and lots of hours of FALCON 4,lock on and DCS:BS) I know that pilots don't what to fly low because of Manpads and other threats that cannot be detected and thus it's a lot harder for them to do CAS effectively , they have to plan carefully each run on the target so that they don't stay too long into enemy manpads range.

This constant threat of not knowing if a missile is flying toward you forces you to constantly pop flare while in danger area and prevents an A10 to destroy a whole russian batallion just with it's gun :coop:

Edited November 10, 2009 by luckyhendrix