Get plane weapons right.

[whisper 0]

Myke;1683890']You've talked about that realistic values (in this case' date=' travelling distance was the topic) would ruin gameplay. So i just showed an example where the actual unrealistic values actually [i']can[/i] ruin gameplay.

About the travelling distance, due to the lack of documantation which missile can reach which distance ingame, i (and also others) will stick about info they have (or might find on the internet) about the real things. And when i see that a missile should travel about 12km, i don't expect it to fall short after 3.4km. I count this also as ruining gameplay as the weapon does not what it is expected to do and we have no info about that it is expected to fall short.

And still, that a missile can travel 12km does not mean that a plane can lock it from 12km, so this aspect would have near to none negative impact on gameplay. Planes remain as short-sighted as they are actually.

Measurements where made with this script: http://pastebin.com/z62M1YHj

It is ugly scripted, just throwed it quickly together to have some data displayed.

And again, i'm not talking about 100% accurate settings, but something better than AA missiles with Mach 6.

2 things, there, then :

Mach 6 missile are definitely a problem, I didn't disagree, and pointed to CIT. I'll probably open up a ticket once I'm back home from holidays about it.

If I remember well, I've seen some weird result back in the days when using "speed" to calculate projectile speeds. Could you try with "velocity" instead, just to double check?

About sticking to real values : again, only cutting down sensor range will not adapt missile behavior to the ranges "lower than real life", as depicted in Takistan. Missiles are supposed to have energy issues at the end of their flight envelop, which will never occur if you keep real number when trying to simulate something like 1/3 of the normal engagement ranges. So yes, I stay on my position, using real numbers has gameplay impact, and realism impact.

Simple example : if plane A is shooting his missile at reach limit of its missile, plane B should have no difficulty to outburn plane A's missile, which would not be the case if only planes sensors were to be adapted to the reduced theater scale.

[[frl]myke 14]

If I remember well, I've seen some weird result back in the days when using "speed" to calculate projectile speeds. Could you try with "velocity" instead, just to double check?

I did that once in the past but couldn't see any difference or even problems between speed and velocity commands. From what i could see (missile is much easier to track visually) the results are, if not 100% accurate, good enough to get enarly correct values. But i'll see if i have the script still around somewhere but don't expect different results. I even think to remember that the Mach 6 speed i've measured with velocity. But woouldn't actually bet on it.

About the real values, i see your concern and i respect this but please let me tell you my point of view.

When it comes to "normal" projectile weapons (rifles, pistols) we all have some knowledge, probably based on movies, television and other games aswell. I know, this is not accurate knowledge but we have a pretty good idea what performance we can expect from a M4.

But how good is the knowledge when it comes to aerial weapons? Quick, without looking at wikipedia, what is the engagement range of a AIM-120? Or a R-3? Or a R-77? No idea? Well, i wouldn't know it either without looking at wikipedia. In reality, pilots know pretty the engagement ranges of their weapons. No, i'm not going to tell that people should learn these values, as they are downscaled and no official (BIS official) information about weapon characteristics are available....how shall we know them?

Easiest would be: if weapon locks on target, it can reach the target.

This is not given. Weapon can lock but still fall short.

You see the problem? We have no weapon manual that tells us that a CH-29 should be used within 3000m to target, not further.

again, only cutting down sensor range will not adapt missile behavior to the ranges "lower than real life",

They are cutted down already. Regardless of missile flight range, lock range remain unchanged.

Simple example : if plane A is shooting his missile at reach limit of its missile, plane B should have no difficulty to outburn plane A's missile, which would not be the case if only planes sensors were to be adapted to the reduced theater scale.

Simple answer: well done missile configs aswell as well configed lock ranges don't mean easier kill. It's even the other way around. Did some tests with high lock and engagement ranges (30km) and guess what, i was very often capable to outturn enemy missiles by steep diving and using hills as cover and that was back with ArmA 2, so no countermeasures. It was me in a AV-8B vs a Su-34 which had 4 R-73 AA missiles.

So at the very end, it shifts the whole gameplay factor towards more skilled pilots as they know how to avoid or outturn enemy fire.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Here is one point that no one has spoke of. BIS does not have access to information due to them being out side the US. We here can Google information about the weapons in question. But outside the US you may have issues getting the information that we take for granite. But on the other hand. BIS have us to inform them of the mistake they have made. If this is to be a proper sim leaning game. The big things should be properly done. Look at Fleet Command. It is a proper sim of its time. This was released in 1998. Even with FC specs you are close to 90% of the working weapon & sensor systems that have not change over the years. Just having upgraded the range of the weapons & sensors. My view.

[[frl]myke 14]

BIS does not have access to information due to them being out side the US. We here can Google information about the weapons in question.

Erm...i'm not sure yet...is this a joke? No honestly, is this a joke or are you talking seriously?

[Defunkt 431]

This is precisely why Mando Missile exists, it will (bound only by the maximum lifetime of the missile object) take care of acceleration, maximum speed, agility, detection range, locking range, locking arc and God only knows what else. It can (for example) model both the AIM-9L and AIM-9X with differing abilities for each, scaling each missile type to each other type and also to the typical map sizes/aircraft speeds & altitudes used in game. I'm pretty certain Mandoble could tell you the engagement ranges of an AIM-120, R-3 & R-77 off the top of his head.

No doubt the next cry will be "well we shouldn't need a mod" but if not to fill in the capabilities and finer details it's not commercially viable for BI to fully flesh out for what other reason should BI support the modding of their games? It's the greatest thing they've added to the game (especially at this time in PC gaming) and far outweighs every/any little texture that doesn't show quite the right designation. I mean seriously Myke, step back, you compare this to folk debating the screw on an assault rifle as though we spend 75% of our game time with the AIM-9's LOD#1 taking up a quarter of our screen (as we actually do with the assault rifles).

[[frl]myke 14]

@Defunkt

read this, please: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=102692

I'm not asking for your help, just read it. Then tell me: shall i just configure all missiles to Mach 6 and flight distance 500m? Telling people "use MMA"?

Tell me thats the only way to do it and i'll do so.

[Defunkt 431]

Given what you've identified then yes, I think that would be best option, for people who don't use MMA you maintain consistency with vanilla behaviours and for those who desire better fidelity MMA is definitely the way to go.

[[frl]myke 14]

Well then...Houston, we have a problem. Personally i don't want to use MMA. No need to ask why, my reasons are my reasons. But nonetheless i don't want aerial weapons falling short.....you know what? I'll just do it for myself and our clan. No further releases, no new addons. People don't want it right? Ok, fine. I shall step back? I will.

Edited July 16, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[mandoble 1]

Myke;1685346'] People don't want it right? Ok' date=' fine. I shall step back? I will.[/quote']

That is a joke, right??

[Defunkt 431]

Myke;1685346']But nonetheless i don't want aerial weapons falling short.....you know what? I'll just do it for myself and our clan. No further releases' date=' no new addons. People don't want it right? Ok, fine. I shall step back? I will.[/quote']

Uhm... okay, whatever, just put the lid on that tin of RVMAT, I think the fumes are getting to you.

[xPaveway 10]

Personally i don't want to use MMA. No need to ask why, my reasons are my reasons.

Wow, touchy much? Is it some kind of jealousy that MMA came up with a good mod?

Sucks that you don't want to use MMA though, it adds a lot of realism to flying and makes the missiles way more realistic. I've learned to accept that BIS can only get Arma 2 so far, it's up to the modders to add the specific details.

[mandoble 1]

Myke is just looking for trusty config values for his weapons just in case the user wants to play missions without any extra content (including MMA). This doesnt go against MMA usage, as MMA is going to support all his missile based weapons the same as it is already supporting all the weapons included in the old (current) missile box for his current F16 pack. It was not planned and it is not needed to make his missile box MMA dependant out of the box. In fact, the only config value that might affect MMA is "time to life" and Myke already took care of it.

[[frl]myke 14]

Wow, touchy much? Is it some kind of jealousy that MMA came up with a good mod?

Sucks that you don't want to use MMA though, it adds a lot of realism to flying and makes the missiles way more realistic. I've learned to accept that BIS can only get Arma 2 so far, it's up to the modders to add the specific details.

Why is it always jealousy? Mandoble and i have a pretty good contact and i'm proud that he has me on his contact list.

Besides that, i sign what Mandoble wrote. End of topic.

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

Sometimes I really don't get this community :confused: On the one side absolute perfection is demanded for BIS, on the other side the community accepts certain issues and offers a strange high resistance factor to certain opinions. Then there's the point "If you don't make addon A dependent to addon B, you're "not a nice person" (to avoid bad words :p ).

Cheers to the people who care and actually help each other.

[whisper 0]

Myke;1684770']About the real values' date=' i see your concern and i respect this but please let me tell you my point of view.

When it comes to "normal" projectile weapons (rifles, pistols) we all have some knowledge, probably based on movies, television and other games aswell. I know, this is not accurate knowledge but we have a pretty good idea what performance we can expect from a M4.

But how good is the knowledge when it comes to aerial weapons? Quick, without looking at wikipedia, what is the engagement range of a AIM-120? Or a R-3? Or a R-77? No idea? Well, i wouldn't know it either without looking at wikipedia. In reality, pilots know pretty the engagement ranges of their weapons. No, i'm not going to tell that people should learn these values, as they are downscaled and no official (BIS official) information about weapon characteristics are available....how shall we know them?

Easiest would be: if weapon locks on target, it can reach the target.

This is not given. Weapon can lock but still fall short.

You see the problem? We have no weapon manual that tells us that a CH-29 should be used within 3000m to target, not further.

They are cutted down already. Regardless of missile flight range, lock range remain unchanged.

Simple answer: well done missile configs aswell as well configed lock ranges don't mean easier kill. It's even the other way around. Did some tests with high lock and engagement ranges (30km) and guess what, i was very often capable to outturn enemy missiles by steep diving and using hills as cover and that was back with ArmA 2, so no countermeasures. It was me in a AV-8B vs a Su-34 which had 4 R-73 AA missiles.

So at the very end, it shifts the whole gameplay factor towards more skilled pilots as they know how to avoid or outturn enemy fire.[/quote']

Would I still be on combat flight sim games (which are the ones which made me entered online gaming more than 10 years ago :) ), yes, I would have answered rather easily about missiles ranges, they are quite well documented. If I'm not mistaken AMRAAM is effective up to 40 miles, but is at this point out of energy, that's what I was pointing at for example, and burning out a missile at the end of its flight envelop like that is a simple matter of doing a half loop upward. You cannot outmaneuver a missile with such a move when the missile has still energy left. Energy is a very important matter if you talk about air, you should not disregard this.

To be real honest, I always found planes to not have much place in A2 theater. It's allready limit too tiny for helicopters, planes are going to feel ultra arcadish no matter what (even though Mandoble did a hell of a job in this matter)

But in order to have believable flight time, shooting restriction, etc... missile ballistic ranges should be reduced artificially, if you ask me. Reducing sensor is not enough (and IRL, sensors usually "see" farther than what weapons can reach).

A typical missile engagement in OA will be from 1-1.5 km away. Flight time for this should roughly be the flight time of smtg like 4km IRL (which ofc makes the mach 6 issue even more horrible ;) ). Well, that's what I would do anyway.

So I can understand BI tweaking real life numbers, if it is to stick with the limited fight area (and this is obviously not the case for overspeed missiles)

[[frl]myke 14]

So I can understand BI tweaking real life numbers, if it is to stick with the limited fight area (and this is obviously not the case for overspeed missiles)

I agree, basically i can understand it aswell and i also see the need of downscaling real data to the gameworld we play in. But the implemetation brings up a problem: the average player has probably pretty little knowledge about the actual game mechanics and also about missile performance data. I'm not talking about accurate data, just even a rough idea about it.

So, from that point of view: aP gets in a plane or a chopper, locks a ground target at a range of ~4km, gets a positive lock information (in OA even audible) and presses the trigger, the missile flies towards the target and......misses?

A typical missile engagement in OA will be from 1-1.5 km away.

I can speak only for myself so....if i get this close to a potential target, no matter if it's a enemy plane or a tank, then i feel i did something horribly wrong.

[Inkompetent 0]

It's a tough subject indeed. I guess that basically we'd need another icon on the screen telling if the locked target is within range, and it'd be up to the pilot if to fire or not (for example if the target is headed away from you he'll out-fly the missile, but towards you he'd be in range).

I don't really use anything with lock-on capability at all in the game, but to my knowledge there's a square on the HUD for a target, and an overlayed diamond for a solid weapon lock. So if that was reduced to a square for a locked target, and a diamond over that for when the target is within theoretical weapons range (regardless of target's speed and relative heading) it could be enough. Or the audio-tone of a solid beep or an IR-missile's growl.

That'd be a quite basic implementation, yet making it universally working without specific knowledge of weapons ranges. All one needs is some basic understanding and common sense not to fire at the edge of the envelope if the enemy isn't headed straight towards you.

On the matter with configs I sympathesize though. It is quite sad with such issues when one can't config the stuff properly.

But what values are generally needed for a missile? Acceleration power, agility, drag, engine burn time, max speed, and fuze range?

I can't see the need to make it very much more complex than that to get believable missile flight models.

[[frl]myke 14]

But what values are generally needed for a missile? Acceleration power, agility, drag, engine burn time, max speed, and fuze range?

Aye, those settongs are there and i agree that it should be sufficiant. But the problem lies in the missing knowledge how the config settings work together.

thrust = 100;
thrusttime = 10;
sideAirFriction = 0.02;

Those settings are relevant to missiles speed and range. Each setting does influence aswell speed and range. But the problem is, what are the factors needed to get any desired result and i don't speak of real values but any value.

Missile is too slow, increase thrust. Now it flies too far, decrease thrusttime. But now missile is too slow again. Same problem with sideAirfriction. This influences acceleration (higher value = slower acceleration) aswell as topspeed.

I would just be happy if it would be that way:

maxSpeed = 857; missiles final topspeed in m/s.
acceleration = 2.5; time to reach above topspeed.
thrusttime = 10; engine burn time, after that, ballistic trajectory used

maxSpeed is already there but not used for missile flight behaviour. Afaik it is used for AI to decide if the weapon can be used for the actual target.

Acceleration is also already a valid cfgAmmo entry but has only effect on bullet class projectile (not sure about but couldn't see any influence on missiles).

Thrusttime can stay as it is, i wouldn't also care if acceleration time is part of thrusttime or separate.

Since it wont happen that BIS changes the configs, a clear explanation and probably some formulas how config values can be calculated (and the formula in the BIWIKI "thrust=maxSpeed*0.7*thrustTime" is nothing but wrong) would do the job aswell. I have speed in m/s, i have a range im m or km and i have acceleration factors...so please, how can we fit these info into working config values?

[whisper 0]

Like I wrote in your other thread, here are my findings from a very long time ago :

http://www.ofpec.com/forum/index.php?topic=12869.msg90483#msg90483

[Inkompetent 0]

I guess one issue is the bold text here "thrusttime = 10; engine burn time, after that, ballistic trajectory used", since if that is correct for missiles as well, and not only rockets, we might have an issue. Do missiles stop steering onto their target after the thrust-time is over or not? The primary method of defeating missiles (in BVR fighting) after all is to out-fly their engine, and then force the missile to keep turning causing it lose energy until it no longer manages to keep up with the plane.

[[frl]myke 14]

Like I wrote in your other thread, here are my findings from a very long time ago :

http://www.ofpec.com/forum/index.php?topic=12869.msg90483#msg90483

Aye, got that, thanks. Really appreciate it but...i'm really sorry to say this, it is only of limited help. The problem there is, it addresses to one aspect (maxSpeed) but as soon other factors get changed to fit range, those settings are no longer correct.

Don't get me wrong, really takes me one step further....sadly the whole topic seems to have a marathon distance.

Again, thanks Whisper.