Get plane weapons right.

[[frl]myke 14]

Ok, i've fiddling around with missiles for planes and i am really disappointed. Let's start with the obvious.

- the Sidewinder model is a AIM-9X (even marked as such) but in the HUD it is named as AIM-9L.

- the Sidewinders ingame topspeed is Mach 6 (~2058m/2 = ~7408km/h), the real Sidewinder has topspeed of Mach 2.5 to 2.7

- the AGM-65 Maverick has blue markings which designates it as inert training round. Aye, sure. :rolleyes:

- maxSpeed setting in config value has no effect. Regardless what it says, as long all other settings remain unchanged, changing maxSpeed has no effect at all.

maxSpeed = m/s

100 = 904.225

200 = 904.232

300 = 904.128

400 = 904.285

500 = 904.16

600 = 904.285

700 = 904.211

800 = 904.174

- sideAirFriction, thrust and thrusttime have combined effect on topspeed aswell on flight range and acceleration, making it nearly impossible to create more or less accurate missile settings.

- missile physics simulation is horrible. A CH-29 starts to drift backwards after a flight distance of ~3200m. I have seen such a missile fired against a vehicle near my position, stopping midair close to the target and started drifting backwards until it hitted the ground. After engine burnout, it should have at least a roughly ballistic flightpath. I'm sure that a large amount of not hitted targets is just because missile has decided to go back home.

I know, ArmA 2 is mainly a infantry sim, but if you include air vehicles...well, as my mother used to say: if you do it, do it right.

Sorry, had to vent my frustration about that time i lose just by figuring out nearly correct missile configs. Your turn to call me a whiner. :p

[Fox '09 14]

missiles that go backwards? oh dear.. can that stay?? :D

little issues you pointed out, but as you said, if you're gona do it.. do it right.

as for the maxspeed, whats that supposed to do? Isn't that supposed to set the max speed AI vehicles are allowed to move at, not missiles ?

[[frl]myke 14]

missiles that go backwards? oh dear.. can that stay?? :D

little issues you pointed out' date=' but as you said, if you're gona do it.. do it right.

as for the maxspeed, whats that supposed to do? Isn't that supposed to set the max speed AI vehicles are allowed to move at, not missiles ?[/quote']

In cfgVehicles i guess it is the top speed a vehicle can reach. But maxSpeed exists aswell in cfgAmmo. So the obvious would think that it defines the missile topspeed after acceleration.

And i agree, little issues for those who are not into making missiles. Almost unsolvable problems for those who do.

[Windexglow 10]

I'm not a modder, but I presume topspeed is what stops missiles from going faster, not getting them to there.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Windexglow

nice theory but also false. If it was intended that way (which is possible, agree there with you) it also has no effect. Check the spoiler.

[frederf 0]

I think each of these issues should be searched for and given a community tracker ticket. At least the obvious and simple ones like HUD name for AIM-9X and maverick textures.

Missile accelerations would benefit most from a community effort to play with the necessary values in config for proper acceleration, speed, turn radius, etc. and then submit these correction values along with the ticket. As annoying as the inadequacies are the qualitative behavior is well within "gamer casual" parameters and properly will receive a low priority initially.

[whisper 0]

maxSpeed is an indicator for AI stating, if I remember well, what is the maximum speed of the target they can shoot at with this ammo.

The actual speed of the ammo is determined by initspeed, thrust, thrust time and friction parameters

As for "if you do something, do it right", simply put, they can't. This game is not Falcon4. Things like blue marked Mavs are cosmetic at best. Missile going backward should be reported in CIT

[[frl]myke 14]

maxSpeed is an indicator for AI stating, if I remember well, what is the maximum speed of the target they can shoot at with this ammo.

The actual speed of the ammo is determined by initspeed, thrust, thrust time and friction parameters

As for "if you do something, do it right", simply put, they can't. This game is not Falcon4. Things like blue marked Mavs are cosmetic at best. Missile going backward should be reported in CIT

Maxspeed, quote from BIWIKI:

Description: Declares the maximum speed (m/s).

It definately relates to projectile (missile) speed, not to target.

What you mean is maxLeadSpeed:

Description: Maximimum speed of the target that can be shot with this weapon by AI. For OFP only, in ArmA this command has only effect in CfgMagazines.

And...they can't?

They can't put a correct missile name or

they can't model a AIM-9L?

They can't get markings right? Although i know that BIS != BIA, i guess they have contact and they can share knowledge.

They can't missile speeds right? It is a matter of correct config settings. And Mach 6 for a Sidewinder is not even near of being correct.

And i know it is not Falcon 4, this is not the point anyway. I'm not asking for fancy physics or even more realistic modelled flight behaviour (although this would be nice aswell). It's just, the things the game is supposed to do, it should do right. And missiles drafting backwards isn't right. Hell, it would be sufficient to switch flight simulation routines to bomb simulation after engine burnout.

Edited July 14, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

Well at least for the missile name I could write a replacement :D

[mr.g-c 6]

Myke;1682997']

And...they can't?

They can't put a correct missile name or

they can't model a AIM-9L?

They can't get markings right? Although i know that BIS != BIA' date=' i guess they have contact and they can share knowledge.

They can't missile speeds right? It is a matter of correct config settings. And Mach 6 for a Sidewinder is not even near of being correct.

And i know it is not Falcon 4, this is not the point anyway. I'm not asking for fancy pvysics or even more realistic modelled flight behaviour (although this would be nice aswell). It's just, the things the game is supposed to do, it should do right. And missiles drafting backwards isn't right. Hell, it would be sufficient to switch flight simulation routines to bomb simulation after engine burnout.[/quote']

Very well said!

Its typical for BIS.... there are really COUNTLESS of such oddities, or call it halfhearted realized features in the game and that since OFP. :(

We all know, every gameplay feature in BIS games are realized with the most minimal effort possible - sadly.

Can you open a ticket about this particular issue in the CIS please?

Ohh and absolutely agree and support the statement of your mommy: "If you do, then do it right! - Otherwise don't do it at all.... ;)"

*still surprised that FLIR is so almost perfect and not halfhearted made... hmmm*

[[frl]myke 14]

To be honest, i'm not a big fan of the CIT. When ArmA 2 was released, i've reported that FFAR rockets on MI-24 are spawned at the outer pylons where the guided missiles are (type of missiles differ on MI-24 variant, problem remains the same). Well, take a look at it in OA.

Another "bug" i've reported was that "irlock" config setting doesn't work. It can't be disabled. Regardless if it's set to true or false (0 or 1 for that matter), as soon airLock is enabled, you can also lock ground targets, regardless of irlock setting.

I was told that this is intentional, so "it's a feature, not a bug".

hmkay.

I know that other bugs reported in CIT where addressed, but take a look how many air-vehicle related bugs (non-AI related) have been addressed.

[maddogx 13]

I get the whole complaint about missiles being too fast / flying backwards / not being properly configurable. Well spotted, that stuff needs to be addressed.

But having a slightly different missile model, or wrong markings on a Maverick? Oh wow, I'm speechless. Forget the bug tracker, let's take this seriously gamebreaking issue straight to the forums!

Myke;1683046']I know that other bugs reported in CIT where addressed' date=' but take a look how many air-vehicle related bugs (non-AI related) have been addressed.[/quote']

Well, as I was implying with my sarcasm above, it's all a matter of priority. If you can get an issue sufficiently voted up on the CIT, maybe the devs will pay closer attention to it.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Myke;1683046']To be honest' date=' i'm not a big fan of the CIT. When ArmA 2 was released, i've reported that FFAR rockets on MI-24 are spawned at the outer pylons where the guided missiles are (type of missiles differ on MI-24 variant, problem remains the same). Well, take a look at it in OA.

Another "bug" i've reported was that "irlock" config setting doesn't work. It can't be disabled. Regardless if it's set to true or false (0 or 1 for that matter), as soon airLock is enabled, you can also lock ground targets, regardless of irlock setting.

I was told that this is intentional, so "it's a feature, not a bug".

hmkay.

I know that other bugs reported in CIT where addressed, but take a look how many air-vehicle related bugs (non-AI related) have been addressed.[/quote']

That's because we don't have enough technical oriented people on the CIT to vote for this stuff, and instead all the votes go to the larger, more general bug/feature (ex: ability to shoot out of vehicles, improve AI, essentially useless tickets) tickets.

[Trracer 10]

*still surprised that FLIR is so almost perfect and not halfhearted made... hmmm*

Actually, parts of it is. BI is banging on the big drum about combined op (arma2+OA) but FLIR isn't looking proper for Arma2 units, backpacks are not working. So it's a bit halfhearted anyway.

[whisper 0]

Ohh and absolutely agree and support the statement of your mommy: "If you do, then do it right! - Otherwise don't do it at all.... ;)"

If BI was following this statement, we would have a game with a scope divided by 4, somthg like that.

Missing moddability, mission editor, scripting engine, scale of engine renderer ... Some of these items should be skipped in favor of perfect simulation.

I would cry after that, cause I, personally, don't give a damn about precise simulation of this game. It was originally designed for scale. That's what I'm most interested for. Scale, mission making, modding. Mavs are blue? So what?

You can, with BI team, do a perfect thing. You just leave aside everything that makes OFP since the beginning. And it's not realism

[maddogx 13]

That's because we don't have enough technical oriented people on the CIT to vote for this stuff, and instead all the votes go to the larger, more general bug/feature (ex: ability to shoot out of vehicles, improve AI, essentially useless tickets) tickets.

I wouldn't generalize it quite that much. If you check out the most upvoted issues on the tracker, you'll find that they concern mainly performance improvements (stuttering in towns), gameplay issues (AI warping) and the most obvious "cosmetic" shortcomings (static muzzle flash). Then there are popular feature requests like addon synchronization, which would greatly benefit the MP community.

Just because an issue doesn't interest you doesn't mean it is useless.

[[frl]myke 14]

But having a slightly different missile model...

So you say that this:

looks only "slightly" different than this:

Well ok, a Fiat500 looks only slightly different than a Ferrari Testarossa aswell.

Aswell with the wrong markings.

If you excuse this, you excuse lazyness. Not less and not more. Everyone is whining if a adjustement screw on a G36 is not modelled 100% accurate but here...wrong missile model? Who cares. Wrong markings? Nevermind, no one will notice.

I wouldn't care in a game like CoD:MW2 or BF:BC but on a game that says of itself being a military simulator......well, you get the point.

But i agree, these are cosmetics. The other points aren't.

Edited July 14, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[maddogx 13]

Myke;1683070']I wouldn't care in a game like CoD:MW2 or BF:BC but on a game that says of itself being a military simulator......well' date=' you get the point.[/quote']

The fact that Arma2 is a "simulator" doesn't mean every single model has to be 100% correct. By that logic I could justify the most ridiculous things. Soldiers need to eat, drink, piss and shit, right? So since Arma2 calls itself a simulator, why isn't all this simulated?! WTF?!?!

What I'm trying to say is, the whole "simulator" argument is invalid, because you can use it to justify pretty much anything.

Myke;1683070']But i agree' date=' these are cosmetics. The other points aren't.[/quote']

That's true, but cosmetics can be important issues too, if they concern somthing major. You're certainly right about the missiles for example - the two different AIMs look nothing alike. I had no idea. The thing is, how many people in this community actually know that? And of those who know, how many actually give enough of a crap about it to go and check the models? ;)

Long story short: low interest = low priority.

[ssgwright 10]

Myke this is off topic but I just wanted to say the F16 is beautiful! Can't wait for the next release!

[[frl]myke 14]

@MadDogX

mate, it is less about the wrong model/wrong naming (depending on POV, one or the other is wrong), it is more that BIS gives a sh** about the flying aspect of A2/OA.

Rename the AIM-9L to AIM-9X in the stringtable takes what? 30 seconds? Or creating a AIM-9L model? It took me 6 houres from zero to the finished model. The outcome you might take a look at it in the airweapons replacement pack. Taking into account that i did a higher poly model than BIS would have done (compared with the AIM-9X model) and i am not a professional modelmaker, leave alone that i'm working only with O2 and GIMP...how long would a professional modelmaker with professional tool take? 2 hours? I can only guess but you get the point.

And about the AGM-65 with the blue markings. Why making them blue instead of brown and yellow? Doesn't take more time or anything.

It shows a certain attitude when it comes to planes and theyr weapons.

And again, about being just of cosmetical nature. Even if it has no effect on gameplay itself, it has a effect on immersion. At least for me. Even more that having it done right from the beginning wouldn't have taken a lot of developers ressources.

It's this lazyness or this "i don't care" attitude.

[4 IN 1 0]

Actually, parts of it is. BI is banging on the big drum about combined op (arma2+OA) but FLIR isn't looking proper for Arma2 units, backpacks are not working. So it's a bit halfhearted anyway.

BI already said only OA unit have full FLIR functions AGES ago, yet people still said its "bug" and "halfhearted" work

back to OP, I agree they should have made those tiny detail accrate, yet I dont think they will fix any of those, heck, there are many much bigger poblem that they never fix:(

[maddogx 13]

Myke;1683129']@MadDogX

mate' date=' it is less about the wrong model/wrong naming (depending on POV, one or the other is wrong), it is more that BIS gives a sh** about the flying aspect of A2/OA.

Rename the AIM-9L to AIM-9X in the stringtable takes what? 30 seconds? Or creating a AIM-9L model? It took me 6 houres from zero to the finished model. The outcome you might take a look at it in the airweapons replacement pack. Taking into account that i did a higher poly model than BIS would have done (compared with the AIM-9X model) and i am not a professional modelmaker, leave alone that i'm working only with O2 and GIMP...how long would a professional modelmaker with professional tool take? 2 hours? I can only guess but you get the point.

And about the AGM-65 with the blue markings. Why making them blue instead of brown and yellow? Doesn't take more time or anything.

It shows a certain attitude when it comes to planes and theyr weapons.

And again, about being just of cosmetical nature. Even if it has no effect on gameplay itself, it has a effect on immersion. At least for me. Even more that having it done right from the beginning wouldn't have taken a lot of developers ressources.

It's this lazyness or this "i don't care" attitude.[/quote']

I see what you mean, and sure, just like you I wish they would get things like this right the first time, but on the other hand it's really too late for that now, isn't it? You can get all worked up about these things all day, but that won't change anything. It's certainly neither constructive nor productive.

As for the whole "laziness" / "I don't care" thing... maybe you should consider the whole scope of the game before making accusations about the reasons why they didn't get everything 100% right. You as a mod maker have all the time in the world to check out every last detail of whatever plane or other addon you happen to be making.

But as a software developer I can tell you, when there's a deadline to meet and important stuff to finish, sometimes the less important things like cosmetic issues have to be done "quick and dirty", and sometimes stuff gets overlooked. That's life. :)

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

But as a software developer I can tell you, when there's a deadline to meet and important stuff to finish, sometimes the less important things like cosmetic issues have to be done "quick and dirty", and sometimes stuff gets overlooked. That's life.

What exactly are you referring to? The model issues, the labeling issues or the config issues?

If there's stuff inside of ArmA II that doesn't work, it should be marked in the Wiki as "not working" (by BIS) .. end of story.

Edited July 14, 2010 by [GLT] Legislator

[maddogx 13]

If there's stuff inside of ArmA II that doesn't work, it should be marked in the Wiki as "not working" (by BIS) .. end of story.

Stuff that doesn't work is a whole other issue. We're talking about stuff that doesn't look quite right.

[[frl]myke 14]

AA Missiles that fly with Mach 6....doesn't look quite right or serious issue? Remember, nearly "right" would be Mach 2.5. Effect: shortens time to react drastically, even more as islands in A2/OA aren't really big.