Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

woore

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    154

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

  • Medals

Community Reputation

10 Good

5 Followers

About woore

  • Rank
    Sergeant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Depths of Russia

Contact Methods

  • Steam url id
    HarryDonell

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. woore
    1) It's already there AFAIK. If not, it can be configured and would be right. 2) Recognizing a contrast spot != identification. And no, 2035 number won't give you that ability as well. It requires quite a work on image recognition and target database, and would be in development by 2035. 3) Yes, would be right. As of your post about IR and active radar missiles - no, IR missiles are not that stealthy as you want them to be. All modern NATO missile warning receivers are multispectral, like AN/AAR-57, and detect the missile itself. They don't show its path on the display, like Arma MAWS, but it tracks them. Laser warning receivers are available as well, AH-64s even have an automatic avoidance algorithm activated by LWR. Older systems like Russian SPO-15 were equipped with passive radar sensors only, yes, but current ones are way ahead of them.
  2. woore
    Yes, they help. Not some radars, just the latest APAR with ground-attack modes, like APG-88. I've seen their images and well, they aren't remotely precise and high-resolution. You can distinguish a tank from a transport plane mostly by their size. The range in syntetic aperture mode is limited as well, don't recall to what extent though. So it's too much of a cash and logistics for such limited featureset. And purely CAS planes are better to be simple and inexpensive to be maintained from loosely prepared airstrips, since their range is more limited than that of figters like F-35.
  3. woore
    They're neuther secretly capable nor alert your presense a lot. Switching the srequency at dozens times per second does its job, and they're all the developments of the modern systems we know about, so their characteristics can be calculated or one can make an educated guess. APARs like APG-88 usually aren't installed to the ground attack planes because they're powerful (meaning spotting the 1 m2 RCS target more than 150 nm away on the air background, more than 30 nm on the ground), which is the way above the capabilities of a ground attack jet like A-10 to engage, require shit load of energy indeed and relatively large, expensive and heavy. And require hours to maintain them too. Meanwhile all radars suffer from ground objects interference and problems with their filtering from the target. And last, but not least - they're capable of spotting the target, but completely cease to obtain any useful information to IDENTIFY it. Their resolution is way less than that for FLIR. They just lose to FLIR systems dramatically by price/combat effectiveness at the specific task/logistics costs. The ones installed on Longbow Apache are millimeter ones, they're smaller, have better resolution, but still suffer from the same problems. You simply need to know all these dots are enemies PRIOR to engaging.
  4. woore
    You have to align it and drop it at the right moment, as you can see, if it's about a bomb. I would like if BIS made it the way we have in LockOn (without that depth though), but anyway, it's not "release and it will find". Life won't be much easier with more realistic laser guidance ;-)
  5. woore
    Don't see what's the fuss personally, autoSeekTarget = 1 + zero locking distance will do the trick just fine. If you're so horny you want to screw with off-FOVlaser guidance IRL, you must synchronize the frequency the missile seeks with the frequency of that laser designator. Otherwise it could never aquire the lock or aquire wrong target. And yes, you must align yor launching platform so that missile FOV would be on the target. Especially for the bombs. And yeah, the most of NATO aircrafts (well, all except of F-15C) are capable of carrying targeting pods, and, hence, to track the laser marks. Russian ones and their derivatives have to rely on built-in systems, so it depends. Su-34 and Su-25, all the current fighter-bombers they use have the laser sensors. There are pretty neat examples. Enjoy.
  6. woore
    I wouldn't count on balance, since it's a mission designer's job to balance the things. The content configs should be realistic, not balanced. As of sensors, increasing the thermal and visual sensor ranges would be useless if not backed up by object visibility, which is 4000 m at max on medium machine now. Keep in mind that Arma 3 aerial warfare is scaled down because of island dimensions. Smoke screen blocks the lasers by now. If not, it could be fixed with small config mods. Skalpels? Give you more advantage? Only if you find such nonexisting thing as a good JTAC in Arma MP. People never use them xD Back to the topic, @oukej, what air and ground vehicles will have visualTargetSize and irTargetSize of 1? It'd be good to have a measurement point for configuring our vehicles.
  7. woore
    And when the radar, say, turned on, you can lock the target and _successfully_ hit the target with missile even if the target is outside the missile radar/lock cone, or missile radar comes into account too in this case?
  8. woore
    I mean the first, guiding towards a different position due to the errors in interception vector calculations or target coordinates estimations. The second is already implemented vith the new sensors system I believe. Btw, missile with, say, radar guidance on the vehicle with the radar locks on the targets in its lock cone, or in the vehicle radar cone only? Current Arma 3 Cheetah uses its radar to lock the targets, but Titan AA uses missiles' IR sensor as I see.
  9. woore
    @darksidesixofficial the problem isn't about defeating them (most of antiradiation missiles have roughly the same range, US planes can carry cruise missiles and so on, which could be done in the game quite nice), but about unrealistic coverage _dencity_ we'd have with them, enemy airstrips covered by them (which isn't realistic at all, not even close) while having their range quite overshortened due to the Arma terrain limitations (and hence - engagement time), and oversimplified simulation of their systems (tab-click again?). If the one wants no jets in the air, he could just exclude them from the mission.
  10. woore
    Guys, the current system gradually slows down the target ID process for the planes and gives more time for AA, so I wouldn't come up with such ambitious SAM propositions just now. Let's see how it will turn out. I'd love to see the medium-range AA, if the devs would provide the ECM framework. A response-delaying ECMs could be already simulated in a way by spawning invisible objects with RadarTargetSize above zero around the plane though. @oukej is something like that planned to be hardcoded, or any ECM framework planned? @dragon01 Pantsir S1 is far from 20 km targeting range, it's rather ~12 km, and it suffers from the same precision problems as Tunguska, since he utilizes bicaliber missiles and same flight path calculation algorhytms. It's advantages are rather about new sensors, target selection, APAR with its resolution and sweeping friquency and so on. About mid- and long-range SAM simulation, the main problem lies not in the lack of SACLOS, but in the lack of deep in the radar simulation - different modes, frequencies, targets filtering and selection, switchable missile-path algorhytms and their details, missile target tracking errors and so on. Modern SAMs are still far away from "tab-cklick" mode, as well as the future ones. The other problem is that the aerial combat is downscaled in Arma due to island size) @oukej btw is there currently any way to simulate target tracking errors of the missile? I know you can simulate manuevering errors and 3-point/3-point average/pursuing modes in some way, but is that all? Can't find anything else in MissilesConfig reference. It's quite of a problem here. First because their simulation would be oversimplified, second - while it's possible to fit mid-range AA like Buk into Arma scale (with ~12 km range or so in the game), it comes to be a problem with long-range AA. How should we simulate MIM-104C with 100 km range IRL? A missile system which covers all the map? Arma 2 Tunguska covered a half of the map too though.
  11. woore
    Thing is, IRL the flare launcher was stripped of single-fire mode for CAS planes like A-10 and Su-25 because it was too ineffective, but preferred by the pilots) It would be closer to reality to implement timer programs like "series of 16, 2 minutes". Peral did that on his A-10C as I recall.
  12. woore
    Oukej, is that possible to provide some safe API to change RadarTargetSize runtime? Probably serverside-only command? Well, the runtime changes of config params should be synched with server anyway, otherwise you'll still have the same value for the rest of the clients.
  13. woore
    From my dev experience it's always 50/50: either will get revisited or not :-P So there is a hope)
  14. woore
    Ah, ok then) Could I ask why? The lack of time, too much efforts for the effect just few people would notice? Too much of a work to make it consistent? What ideas did we have for it? Asking just out of common interest)
  15. woore
    Would be wonderful, along with RadarTargetSize config param to have an ability to set its increase due to loadout changes. That would allow to correctly simulate radar cross-section increase with weapons mounted externally, like with F-35, F-22, T-50 and so on. The issue is (and I'm sure the devs understand it) that creating a public interface to change the RadarTargetSize in sqf would lead to a security breach. There are 2 possibilities I see: Poss. 1: - configure RadarTargetSize for magazines classes (we have stealthy gun pods and SNIPER pods, for example) and adding MagazinesStealthThreshold (for example) to set the minimum number of added magazines, from which their RadarTargetSize to be added to the vehicle RadarTargetSize with some coefficient. This way, since the magazines are added in magazines[] array sequentually, the first N magazines[] indexes have to be mapped to the internal slots and MagazinesRadarTargetSizeThreshold set to N to simulate the internal weapon mount. Poss 2: - add bool flag AllowsInternalMounts, a field MagazinesRadarTargetSize to the vehicle config file, and an AddMagazinesInternal script command, which does the following: if (AllowsInternalMounts) { add magazines; }. Add into AddMagazines/AddMagazine commands procedure: RadarTargetSize += magazines.Length * MagazinesRadarTargetSize. This way you'll get: a) an increase of RadarTargetSize when adding the weapons by AddWeapons command, if the vehicle has external mounts and MagazinesRadarTargetSize, while leaving it unchanged when it doesn't; b) a backward compatibility for the old vehicles - you'll simply have to set MagazinesRadarTargetSize = 0 and AllowsInternalMounts = false for the most of the vehicles; c) a more versatile system than Poss. 1; d) it won't break a ton of already written in SQF with AddMagazines, it won't create a leak when added magazines don't increase your RadarTargetSize when they should, it won't require magazines config changes; I realize that it's a mess and still rigid in some way, but that'd allow far more precise simulation of the stealth aircrafts which has external weapon stations.
×