Mando Missile ArmA for ArmA 2

[trekari 10]

I don't know if this is within the realm of possibility through scripting, but I would love to see TrackIR work with the AH-64 gunner's monocle.

I know we've spoken about it before regarding the freelook working, but Track IR does not.

(If this isn't possible, or if someone knows a simple way to implement this through the keybindings or whatever, please let me know)

[mandoble 1]

I dont have TrackIR so I cannot help, but I know that TrackIR users have the sight enslaved to the trackIR and they dont need any extra scripting to make it work. Might be they are in Free Look all the time.

[lao fei mao 21]

@Mandoble

Could you turn MRLS to GMRLS. The vanilla Artillery Computer is fine but not perfect. If you could add a TV guide option,then we can use MRLS achieve accurate attack, no matter the target is a house or a running vehicle.

[mandoble 1]

Lao Fei Mao, yes, that can be done. But not sure about the "running" vehicle case, does the GMRLS have a lock on and target tracking system? I think target data is just a set of GPS coordinates, not really a locked-on "target". Also, a global change affecting to all MRLS might not be a good idea, as these vehicles are already used in many missions as SAM launchers. The setup might be activate by vehicle instead of by vehicle class, so only selected MRLS units at mission level might become GMRLS.

[CombatComm 10]

Hey mando. Love the mod but to be honest not a big fan of the effects for some missles so I am at odds. Is there any PBO i can disable or any config to disable missle trails so I can use WARFX? THank you

[ray243 11]

Looking forward to the nukes!

[mandoble 1]

CombatComm, not yet, but consider that most of the effects you see there are just smoke of the detonations, as most missile smoke trails are using the one used by the fired ammo.

[BigMorgan 11]

The fallout effects on the nuke is fantastic. In our warfare server yesterday I must have shot 5 or 6 nuclear scuds around and about half of Chernarus was covered in nuclear fallout. lol

Do the fallout effects ever dissipate during the course of a mission though?

And is it possible for a user to change some variables to make the fallout markers less opaque? One nuke is basically rendering the map unreadable for some time... 2 in the same area of the map makes a totally-opaque orange blob of ellipses.

[Evil_Echo 11]

Fallout would be my side of things.

5-6 ground bursts can be nasty. Hope you had some NBC-rated vehicles to get around in. I use mostly air-bursts in missions with a lot of nukes, they are easier on your GPU, clean, and correct from at least the US doctrine POV.

1. Real fallout takes weeks to decay to safe levels. I could put a timer in for that, but experience has shown me very few missions last that long. For the same reason I had the lethal dosage levels set where they are - 6 Gray would render you combat ineffective. You might live, but will be out of the fight for weeks at best.

2. I believe we can change the transparency of the marker. Will see about that and if we can will adjust it. Additionally, IFF Mando and I can manage some further magic down the road we could remove the marker altogether. Two ideas are to give you some radiation detection gear and/or add a slight "glow" to the terrain ( mostly visible at night - blue light).

N.B. The radiation dose in overlapping zones is culmulative, so two will drop the LD time to 5 minutes, three to 3-1/3, etc. Smart deployal of a couple of ground bursts can easily establish a lethal zone no leg infantry could traverse. Just be sure you know the prevailing winds because the fallout pattern does take wind into account while it's coming down.

[BigMorgan 11]

Thanks Echo. Anything that you and Manoble to do to make things more "flexible" to mission makers as far as setting the exact color and alpha of those markers would be extremely appreciated.

Personally I think the fallout is great but GossamerS and I just needed to know if it ever dissipates with the time frame of an hour or two for balancing / gameplay reasons. Might have to make the nukes a little harder to come by to prevent abuse if a handful of ground bursts can render an area totally impassable to infantry.

Edited November 30, 2010 by BigMorgan

[mandoble 1]

At least, expect some interesting changes related to radiation areas monitorization in the near future, might be even for next beta ;)

[Evil_Echo 11]

Tell ya what, I'll look into making a global variable you can set to adjust decay rate of fallout. Then people can go uber-realistic if they wish and less so if mission play demands such.

[gossamersolid 155]

I have a pretty good suggestion actually.

Would there be a way to chose between Airburst/Groundburst via the SCUD Launch control GUI you guys have?

[BigMorgan 11]

That would be great Echo.

And sorry we're so demanding over here at TGW... hahaha

[Evil_Echo 11]

I have a pretty good suggestion actually.

Would there be a way to chose between Airburst/Groundburst via the SCUD Launch control GUI you guys have?

That is a good suggestion. Think we should do that. You already can set the mode via scripts or in init line of the launcher. Having the same capability in the GUI just makes sense.

Something in the reloading "station" might make sense as well. My weapons support adjustable yield ( within limits - don't get visions of 1MT explosions ). Would you folks want dial-a-yield, say 1-15 kt range?

That would be great Echo.

And sorry we're so demanding over here at TGW... hahaha

Nah, you are just providing good feedback. If you were unreasonable I'd let you know.

[ray243 11]

How would airbust and groundbust be different in the effects and visually?

[xeno426 10]

( within limits - don't get visions of 1MT explosions

Awww, no Tsar Bomba? :(

[Evil_Echo 11]

How would airbust and groundbust be different in the effects and visually?

Almost all tacticals are detonated above ground level. Ground bursts are quite close to ground level. The fireball dehydrates/vaporizes the soil nearby and the resulting dust gets pulled into the familiar mushroom cloud. That material gets contaminated with radiation products of the weapon, becoming a major component of fallout.

Explode a weapon high enough up and no debris gets sucked in, resulting in a much cleaner burst and no column of debris rising up. You will still get a condensation cloud resembling the cap of a mushroom.

A detonation very high up and all you get is a spherical burst. That would be the region for significant EMP generation - you need lower air density for that.

The non-visual effects of a burst at optimal height ( just high enough to avoid fallout ) and a ground burst are similar - heat, radiation, pressure. The impact of the air blast is more downward, so objects fly about less.

Here is a vid of a British test, an airburst of the type I'm describing. 2:00 is beginning of the explosion.

zLFRIiflSgU

Awww, no Tsar Bomba? :(

The AN602 fireball radius was 4km, the top nearly reaching the altitude of the Tu-95V bomber that dropped it. It could have caused 3rd-degree flash burns 100km from the hypercenter and cloud base was 40km across. Superimpose those numbers on cherna and you might as well just cutText to a white screen and then call endMission.

There are limits of what fits on the maps and what the game can render. My weapons effects can scale up much further without problem but the graphics engine starts to choke around 15kt. If the tech improves then larger weapons become feasible.

[ray243 11]

Yeah, I know about the details, but what I'm saying is ingame. Sorry if I sounded like an arse.

[Evil_Echo 11]

The difference between EE/MM air and groundburst is just the cloud that is rendered, fallout effects, and how impact moves items in blast zone.

Damage due to blast, thermal flash, prompt neutron and gamma radiation all attenuate with distance. The damage algorithm always uses slant distance so the damage at ground zero is somewhat less with an airburst. Still would not count on surviving if a 5kt detonated directly over you at it's assigned altitude.

Each of those effects attenuate at different rates and inflict damage in different ways depending on what kind of unit is involved. So you might end up still dead, but due to a different cause if an airburst hits you. Airbursts are good if you want to kill tank crews and not the tanks themselves, as long as the tank is not TOO close to ground zero.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Evil_Echo

[xeno426 10]

The AN602 fireball radius was 4km, the top nearly reaching the altitude of the Tu-95V bomber that dropped it. It could have caused 3rd-degree flash burns 100km from the hypercenter and cloud base was 40km across. Superimpose those numbers on cherna and you might as well just cutText to a white screen and then call endMission.

There are limits of what fits on the maps and what the game can render. My weapons effects can scale up much further without problem but the graphics engine starts to choke around 15kt. If the tech improves then larger weapons become feasible.

Lol, my comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I'm well aware dropping a 50Mt bomb would effectively alt-f4 your game. :p

[BigMorgan 11]

For me I'd probably be shopping for a new gfx card, like you just did ya lucky bastid :p

Sorry for the off-topic. :o

[smiley nick 51]

Hi,

Me and a friend were testing this, with the latest version of ACE, however when we fired the Jav, sometimes it would send us into a shock on the ground and sometimes we could fire successfully.

We were both in exactly the same position each time; do you think this is a compatibility issue with ACE and Mando? As everything else works perfect, this is a real shame.

This was also on a hosted mission, not a dedicated

[mandoble 1]

Smiley Nick, can you test the same without ACE?

[PTV-Jobo 820]

I can confirm this as well. I can't remember, but pretty sure with 1.55 I didn't have that issue. I tried 1.56 vanilla, 1.56+ace, 1.56+ace+mando, and 1.56+mando....seems like it doesn't want to play nice with ace any longer in that respect. Not sure what could have happened though.