subs17
-
Content Count
449 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by subs17
-
-
Well consider this in order to lock a ground tgt they first have to ground stabilise then adjust the TDC box to tgt size then slew TDC onto the tgt and lock followed by laser and then fire. You can't ground stabilise an air target without a solid background. And thats pretty much the reason why I think Hellfires aren't used for that purpose. Look at the 30mm gun if its in visual range hes probably able to hit it with the gun and it follows the pilots head tracking. Gun is the most ideal A/A weapon since most engagements would be quite close anyway.
-
Well according to what you're saying of which part makes sense than you would also remove realism by making the Vikhr capable of hitting aircraft! In reality the Vikhr hits enemy aircraft the same way the Hellfire does!The point about the LGBs was only to demonstrate that if laser guided bombs can hit aerial targets, the Hellfire can do that more easily (afterall it's a propelled missile).
One point that I previously mentioned is that in the most realistic and dedicated helicopter sim made for PC which is Jane's Longbow 2 and and other sim which is becoming closer to Jane's Longbow 2 realism which is Enemy Engaged with mods do allow for air targets to locked and engaged with Hellfire missiles! Any of those two sims are way more realistic than ArmA, so if BIS decided to allow the Vikhr to engage air targets they must do the same with Hellfires!
Or again, maintain how it was and don't allow any of those missiles to engage (lock) air targets.
Firstly the LGB
Quote[/b] ]* According to book 'Lightning in the Storm' the "OH-58 Kiowa-like" Iraqi helicopter was just lifting off when it was hit by a Hellfire missile.Quote[/b] ]The lead F-15E of a formation of two (from the 335th) acquired a helicopter unloading Iraqi soldiers through the FLIR pod and released a GBU-10. After 30 seconds, the F-15E crew thought the bomb had missed its target and the pilot was about to use a Sidewinder missile instead, but suddenly the Hind helicopter was vaporized. The Special Forces team estimated that the Hind was roughly 800 feet (240 m) over the ground when the 2,000 lb (910 kg) bomb hit its target.[11] But the air-to-air kill was not recognized until November 2, 2001. They tried to engage the other helicopters but an allied bombing started around the F-15E so the pilot decided to get out.[8]Both cases are aircraft taking off and then getting hit by the GBU or Hellfire. I think the vhikr probably functions differently from the Hellfire as it probably can still track the tgt if its above the KA50 unlike the Hellfire which would be limited by the FLIRs limits. The Ka50 also has a helmet mounted sight which would allow for better A/A with the missile. One can only speculate though as to the real performance of both missiles but i think ED will cover both in the DCS series so you might get a clue as to just how effective both might be IRL based on the data they are using. Janes LB2 only allowed for A/A kills with Hellfires that were slow moving like helicopters etc. It still sort of made the launch process unrealistic since the player didn't manually lock the tgt as you do with the SU25T in FC it was more cycle all tgts with a key like Arma. Not really a good candidate as far as examples of realistic weapons employment.(in fact its closer to Armas process than lockon is still a good sim though) Another thing that you have to think about for both the AH1 and the KA50 pilots would probably not use Hellfire or vhikrs for A/A they would post likely use a heater or the gun IRL or rely on CAP. Its not about balance its about realism as far as I see it. Maybe limiting the vhikrs to low aspect low speed tgts and hellfires to slow moving(taxiing) or stationary/hovering aircraft.
-
You say that "I'm quite wrong" with my statements but the truth is that you don't know for sure if the Vikhr is better than the Hellfire while engaging aerial targets and I don't know if the Hellfire is better than the Vikhr (again while engaging aerial targets). The truth is that no-one knows for sure which of both missiles is the best while engaging aerial targets!We only know that both missiles can engage aerial targets, and that's a real fact and that's why if BIS decided to gave to Vikhr a capability to engage aerial targets it should also give it the Hellfire, NOT for balance as some seem to suggest that this is all about, but for REALISM!
Finally, and perhaps the "strongest" argumentation that the Vikhr is better (than the Hellfire) at engaging aerial targets is because there is a video in youtube that shows a "gigantic" Tu-16 drone (yes, the target aircraft is a very large Tu-16 heavy bomber) which is flying slowly, straight and directly away from the launching aircraft which doesn't indicate any awesome or even a good air-to-air capability. I'm 100% sure and willing to bet anything that a Hellfire could hit that same aircraft in that same conditions as well! Hell, perhaps even a TOW could hit that target in those conditions!
That my friend, are the ideal conditions for ANY missile (even for missiles that weren't designed to be air-to-air missiles) to hit an aircraft -> Very large target; Slow moving target; Straight flying target; Moving directly away from the launching aircraft.
You would remove realism by making the Hellfire capable of hitting aircraft. If they modeled an MFD view for both AH1 and KA50 so that pilots had to lock manually the ground tgt and then lase and fire it would fix this issue. Since the Vhikr can hit a slow moving air target the pilot would still have to manually guide the missile so it would happen quite rarely in MP if that were to happen. As for your point on the LGBs that was just a lucky shot its not the same as firing a laser guided anti-tank missile at an A-10. Of course its possible to lock a parked or taxiing aircraft theres no issue with that as it is missiles are quite arcadish in Arma as far as aircraft are concerned but hopefully Arma2 might feature improvements in this area.
-
It just had a lot to do with the last game of warfare I played. We were opfor, pushing out with armor, probing to find the Blue MHQ, and five blufor guys went air, buying AH-1's and AH-6's to locate our MHQ. Bought a KA-50, cut through all their expensive helicopters to find their MHQ and win the game. Their air defense was two M163's, nothing else. They put all their eggs in one expensive basket, and left themselves wide open. A bunch of guys with stingers running around, and I wouldn't have owned South Sahrani with one helicopter. And AA soldiers cost about 10 percent of what a helicopter costs.Walker's point is that you can't play until you can afford air, and then all 16 people on both sides get choppers, you have to control territory to create a viable defense against air threats, armor threats, infantry threats, and if you throw all your resources into very expensive helicopters without devoting anything to defense, one KA-50's going to be all it takes to end the game.
That will only work if the mod you are playing limits the number of KA50s you can have(financially). And as for your approach its no surprise since you can pick off the Vulcans with your Vhikrs.
-
Walker that has very little to do with what we're talking about here.
-
Can you show me your source that says the vikhr and the hellfire have 'similar performance' Â when being used air to air? Â That's quite a large statement and I think it's false.My friend, you can believe what you want and but these 2 points are FACTS:
1- The Hellfire can also engage Air targets
2- Both the Hellfire and Vikhr have a SECONDARY and VERY LIMITED capability against air targets, specially if the air target is manouvering and moving fast.
If you're talking about slow moving or hovering helicopters maybe anything else highly unlikely. In fact the deadliest A/A weapon on the Apache is its gun. There used to be mounts for AAMs such as Stinger and Sidewinder but they have since been taken off. Hellfire is not an AAM, and the Vhkr has only very limited A/A capability.
-
On Russian tanks during the 80s carried heavy machine guns on the turret specifically to help defend against air attack. The Russian SAM networks are usually linked together in a modern battlefield the SAM operators can work together to shoot down aircraft they can even use Search radars to lure pilots into a SAMbush or set the pilot up for a intercept with GCI.
-
But doesn't this in real-life mean that the KA50 Pilot needs to point his flight direction towards the to engaging enemy?The laser beam-riding pointing device (even if its automatically) isn't on a 360° rotating turret as far as i know.
But in Arma its "Fire and Forget". You can Lock-on air target with it, fire, turn 180°, lock on the next and fire again, and so on....
This i what annoyes me at most.
Regards, Christian
Eh, you can hardly call ArmA a "simulation" for air vehicles anyway.
Its actually better than any other FPS or console sim it just needs a few improvements to make it better. I think its possible in future versions to make flyable aircraft similar to lockons A-10 if the devs wanted to.
-
For most of the flight the VIKhR beamrider is not pointing at the target the computer is predicting path and updating missile path and at termination needs only to be within a cone of 5m radius of target surface to get a hit.By the way it is only in Air to Air mode that double fire method is suggested in the KA50; in ATGM mode the single fire method is used and it has 90% kill probability.
Compare 90% for a vhkr to a hellfire which always hits its tgt, hellfires rarely ever miss even moving tgts even if the tgts laser detection system picks up the laser it is too late. The Hellfire is a far better more reliable missile than a vhkr and the latest LOAL versions make it an even better weapon since the launch platform can fire the missile without exposing itself to the tgt. Imagine that the enemy is sitting in his tank doesn't have a chance at all he won't even see the helicopter popup because they don't need too unlike the KA50s Shivkal targetting system. And the AH64 holds the 2nd place vs the A-10 for killing tanks at 500 kills. As for A/A modes both missiles require the tgt to be inside the launch aircrafts targetting display which is the difficult part for a fast mover since exposure is a very short period of time where you have to slew the TDC and lock the tgt. The vihkr does have an advantage by there being no warning but the 2d control surfaces would make any A/A kill quite tricky. (only A/A kill I've seen with Vhkrs was a large slow moving tgt)
-
Tow launcher sight on the LAV doesn't zoom like the one on the Humvee great patch though.
-
Heres a good video showing tank busting in Lo with mavericks, bombs and the gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unlCjohJVjk&feature=related
And heres another good one
-
On the map intel points to a SAM protecting the tgts so hes our 1st tgt.
Now once the maverick is launched we turn back and pop some Chaff/flares to distract any missiles that do get launched.
Once threats are taken care of the rest are fish in the barrel.
Notice the altitude and the distance from which I'm hitting the tgts which is what Arma needs plus a decent MFD for the 65s instead of the arcade method. You really need to ground stabilise then slew the TDC onto the specific tgt (SAM or AAA ) 1st.
-
Heres one of the methods I use in LO
1/ Locate the tgt on the map.
2/ Pinpoint the location
3/ Locate them visually using the road as a reference point.
-
In the case of modern manpads and low level airdefences such as Tungaska I tend to use either AGM65 Mavericks or CBUs. With 65s you can easily pickout the SAM launchers and AAA in a convoy and just surgically remove them followed by a med altitude drop of CBUs on the convoy. But you need to work between 8-10000ft to keep away from the SAMs.
This is too low.
-
A shallow ingress is prefered over a steep one since you have more time to recover also CCIP allows more shallow dive bombing. If you were using manual bombing mode then you would have to use the right dive angle for the preset distance to the tgt and release height. A steep dive angle for straffing leaves you exposed to SAMs and simply won't work against a shilka with guns as you are closing with the tgt too rapidly to break away in time to avoid the 23mm cannons range. With CBUs you can take out a Tungska with a shallow dive angle with a high altitude release. Of course this sort of flying requires an increase in the draw distance of the ground objects. BTW I understood Walkers post regarding a dive bomb not actually a popup attack. If you have air cover and no SAM threat its a good technique. Popup attacks are for cases where the enemy has good air defences and CAP and you have no choice but to get low as far as A-10s are concerned. Another way is to have an FAC mark the tgt with smoke a possibility in Arma with a mod. I find you really need good situational awareness for this type of flying so you can run in hit the tgt and then bug out but still we need a greater distance for the objects to be visible, proper readings and sights in the HUD and realistic weapons loadouts.
-
That assumes there's absolutely no flex in the metal mounting hardware. Bolt an M2 to a 1,000,000 tons of concrete with a swiveling mount and it's still going to jitter when it fires.Firstly I would suggest a joystick. They are ~$25 for a basic one and it's going to make flying really possible. Mouse and keyboard don't cut it for anything more than transport helos.
Walker makes a good point about flying aircraft. The biggest danger to a CAS aircraft is the pilot's attitude who is flying it. Feelings of invulnerability and lack of planning are the worst dangers out there. The really good pilots make it look easy because they absolutely minimize their exposure to the enemy in both space and time. It takes a lot of hard work and careful prep to make it seem effortless.
Realize that real pilots are shooting at 10-20 times the range that we are in visibility much better and have radar systems that work  better. Default ArmA planes and engine make a hard job harder before you even get off the ground, so make sure that you play conservatively.
That being said the tank 50 cal machine guns seem like they are being radar controlled. The coaxial machine gun on a real tank would likely be pretty accurate but not the commander turned out type on these T-72s. It's a problem with the maxLead speeds in the config and the fact that if it's over that amount they won't fire at all but if it's under that they will fire super accurately. A nice improvement would be for the gunners' accuracy to decline linearly from lead speed = 0 to very poor at max lead speed. As the target approaches max lead speed their accuracy goes to heck and at max lead they stop trying altogether.
Also the pilot's best friend is the commander on the ground that can recon, suppress, distract, mark, etc the enemy before the plan is even in the combat area.
Its not only the hit probability thats a problem its also the damage model which gives too much damage from AAA when an A-10 can still fly with 1 engine, 1/2 a wing, 1/2 a tail 1 rudder and still land with wheels up in an emergency. Plus the armour around the pilot and engines etc also needs to be taken into account. As for dive angles etc on the ingress to tgt that is sort of not as relevant as you might expect because it depends on the height of release.(BA/AD and weapon you are using) You can safely do a low level popup attack with an A-10 so long as you have countermeasures and a safe ingress/egress path. Most of this stuff simply won't work in Arma due to the draw distance you really need better visual id from much further away to do it successfully. Lockon again is a good example of where you can realistically use these tactics(and with vehicle AAA as well) as it models the damage and the countermeasures when facing rear aspect manpads etc. Arma also needs the right information displayed on the HUD Feet/Knots airspeed plus the straffing/gun/rocket reticle also needs a range display as the radar altimeter takes a slice and displays the distance above the reticle. And thats how you know that at 2.2Miles I can straff a Shilka without getting stung.
-
Pilot survivability depends alot on a properly modeled aircraft so you really not only need a good FM you also require realistic weapons modelling and employment plus a working RWR and ECM/Chaff and flares. When using an a-10 it depends on the threat as to how high or low you will fly. If you look at the greatest threat to the A-10 is both the Shilka and the Strela. In order to fight against the Shilka what you do is first good intel on tgt location. 2nd right weapon to take it out a surgical strike would involve Mavericks a Shilka stands out amongst armoured vehicles in a convoy due to its large turret so its easy to pick out with the 65s TV view. If you use the gun IRL you can pick off the Shilka due to the longer range of the A-10s gun. The other option is CBUs or iron bombs with either dive bomb CCIP or level with CCRP. Tactics can also involve a popup attack in the event of enemy CAP. As for the Strela you need flares to be modeled to get more of a chance against IR SAMs. Most of this stuff you can't yet do in Arma as it needs:
-working MFD for maverick targetting
-RWR and ECM
-FM improvements to allow accurate use of the gun
-visual distance fixed for high altitude use
-realistic weapons loads CBUs, iron bombs etc
If you need an example buy Lomac and use its A-10 and you'll see just how good it should be. IRL the A-10 would own just about everything if a few improvements were made.
-
Thats right its not a flight sim it is a Battle simulator which incorporates everything.Except elements of realism when it comes down to the kit.
I think its possible to mod most of the kit to a more realistc performance as Arma has the most potential for this out of all the other FPS games out there. The A-10 would take a fair bit of work though as you would have to add iron bombs etc And a working RWR.
-
I tested it briefly and it seems to me the stall speeds are way too low now - with this FM the A10 now is able to take off and fly at 145 km/h (aprox. 80 kts) with no flaps extended. I guess the envelope change is perhaps a little too drastic?In the same area, it seems to me the takeoff distance needed is now unrealistically short as well - which is perhaps caused by the same change?
What are the limitations in Arma regarding the aircraft? Is it possible to increase its complexity a bit and add weight/drag/thrust etc?
-
Thats right its not a flight sim it is a Battle simulator which incorporates everything. And yes improvements in that area should be encouraged if you wish to make the Battlefield more realistic.
-
Proper Stall recovery for an A-10 is:
Reduce AoA to below stall warning by relaxing back stick pressure will produce an immediate recovery. Retract speed brake and apply maximum power will decrease altitude loss. Hogs got some funny stall charcteristics like if the gear is down and you stall they have a nose right yaw.
-
Daniel @ May 03 2008,03:00)]Yep, it's been mentioned often enough, the A10 basically has no thrust in game. Guess if they fix it, they fix it. Other than that it's an outstanding vehicle in game, especially with AAW sounds and 6thSense Tracers. Â
Yeah the most ideal setup would be an aircraft setup like lockons A-10 with the simplified flight model and that level of avioincs pity ED couldn't work with BIS to make a simplified yet more authentic looking A-10 performance.
-
Daniel @ May 03 2008,06:09)]The ability of the aircaft to hit targets is fine. It's the take-off performance and the loss of speed in turns/inability to recover speed that's being disupted.Regardless if the MAPfact version has an edited config, it will still inherit these issues with the BIS flight model.
I have to disagree with you there as the method of which you use for weapons delivery is quite inaccurate. IRL you can pick tgts off with the mavericks from much further away. And also if you were to use iron bombs or CBUs you can use those from much higher altitude. As for straffing I think the FPS and draw distance and the low axis sensitivity mean that its quite inaccurate for straffing. To make things more realistic you would want a working TV display to properly use the mavericks.
-
I followed the whole topic and to give some input I can say....We can't expect uber realistic chopper flight dynamics , as the many many driving sims out can't even match a cars physics as of yet. Many dedicated driving sims.
How do the real pilots rate MS Flightsims flying model? Must be far from perfect.
I fly with key/mouse but do have a joystick and it is annoying switching when you hop in a flying craft but If I flew more it wouldn't be a problem.
I was a plane ace in BF42 and the majority of aces used joystick maybe around 10% used key/mouse mainly at a disadvantage of switching views quickly using hat control.
I do agree with fixing the landing damage in Arma , its too unforgiving
And it seems like one bullet hit and you only have less than a minute its flyable, loses fuel and engine stops.
Well to honest it ain't that big a deal anyway switching from keyboard/mouse to HOTAS or joystick. Its good being able to use both in game as the need arises. The better approach is to have auto-centering on or off switch that way everyone can use the one they prefer although to the keyboard/mouse approach in most sims is quite impractical. You can get away with it in Arma since alot of the FM is toned down enough to let you get away with it.(keyboard mouse approach won't work with FSX accelerations EH101 missions you would have a very frustrating time trying to use the hoist or slingload) Regarding FS well you can't carry other people online and you most certainly can't shoot anything so it can't really be compared to Arma unless you're looking at avionics or flight characteristics. As far as MS flight model for the R22 its quite close(from a friend of mine whos an R22 pilot) but the EH101 lacks FBW modelling for the FCS and also lacks auto-hover and auto-pilot which IRL makes alot of the flying much easier. Some things that are interesting though are the ground effect on slopes/buildings and also the effect of crosswinds whilst trying to hover. I think it would be quite cool to be able to see a future version of Arma with helicopters on the same level as the ones in FSX or better. Theres alot of features that would add more to the online experience that are probably just out of reach with Armas setup.
KA50 can shoot down aircraft in ArmA why?
in ARMA - GENERAL
Posted
Best way to fix this then is to have a FLIR display for launching the Hellfire. A MFD for the Shivkal to launch vhkrs and to have a button for a laser and AAMs for the AH1 and the KA50. That way only tgts locked with the MFDs can have Vhikrs/hellfires launched at them and air tgts will get mainly hit by AAMs such as Aim9 and Strela.