Complete revamp of aa missile and flare system

[DogACTUAL]

Originally Posted by SkyEmperor

Some jets turn better. I don't see how you can have an actual dogfight on PR.

The turn rate of the jets has nothing to do with the changes i proposed. Again, since all jets would get the same treatment, that would mean the difference in performance between them would stay as it is now.
Talking about the turn rate is justified, but that's an entirely seperate issue.

[DogACTUAL]

Originally Posted by Iceman11

BECAUSE THIS IS 300 YEAR OLD GAME. IS IT NOW EASIER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?
How would you model chaffs in game huh? They aren't even there for spoofing radar missiles. THEY ARE FOR BREAKING RADAR LOCK. Since we don't have radars in this game and surely can't be done, then why bother. Pleas in future if you are gonna be writing suggestions like this read a book or two. Things aren't remotely close like you think they are. Ignorant...

I suggest you read closely through my original post and pay attention.

The chaffs would just function as the flares do now, they would just have a different visual effect and instead would only work on radar guided missiles.

It might very well be possible to assign the flares and chaffs to only work on the specific missile types they are supposed to counter.
Now say that isn't possible, then you just have both chaffs and flares visual effects when you deploy countermeasures so you can justify that it counteracts both missile types and you assign different values to the missiles depending on their type, like hit propability or if they trigger the warning system.

Effectively there would be no radar of course, but you would just put the missiles into two different categories, depending on if they are infrared seeking or radar guided and just use the same lock and tracking system that the engine is utilizing now.

Did you know that there are radar guided missiles right now in PR? They are the long range missiles on the jets and there will also be the addition of a radar guided anti ship missile in the next update. Like i said, they will have no actual radar screen or anything like that, they will just lock on like the infrared seeking missile. It is just about showing the difference between them, mainly that one can be detected while the other can not be.

[LiamBai]

As far as I know, there's only one kind of AA missile in the game, with various forms of it having different speeds/turn rates and the lock cones and time varying. The result is that a flare that affects "long range" missiles necessarily does the same thing to "short range" ones too, and vica versa.

Adding chaff would only add unnecessary complexity and confusion with no benefit due to the limitations.

[Iceman11]

Originally Posted by [R-CON]LiamBai

Adding chaff would only add unnecessary complexity and confusion with no benefit due to the limitations.

Yes. No need to continue this thread.

[DogACTUAL]

Originally Posted by [R-CON]LiamBai

As far as I know, there's only one kind of AA missile in the game, with various forms of it having different speeds/turn rates and the lock cones and time varying. The result is that a flare that affects "long range" missiles necessarily does the same thing to "short range" ones too, and vica versa.

Adding chaff would only add unnecessary complexity and confusion with no benefit due to the limitations.

Yes. And i propose to make the various forms even more different from each other, mainly that one of them doesn't trigger a lock warning in the jet.

Concerning the flares, like i said, if it is not possible for the missiles to differentiate between flares and chaffs, just keep the 'flares' and add another visual effect for the chaffs when they are deployed. Just cosmetics so it is understandable how the 'flares' would actually go about countering an AMRAAM. That way you can explain how the countermeasures counter both types of missiles.

Now only assign different values to the missiles, depending on the type they are to represent ingame, like turn rate, hit propability and how effectively they are stopped by the CM like i laid out in my original post. And stop heatseekers from triggering a missile warning, although that one might be difficult since you said both of the missile types work the same from a code perspective, but a workaround might very well be possible, maybe use the code from the laser guided missiles.

Again all of this to essentially drive home the difference between heatseekers and radar guided missiles, so there are different tactics of using them and countering them.

If you know how heatseekers work it is pretty laughable that their lock can be detected, let's make that more authentic, i thought PR was all about that.

[LiamBai]

Originally Posted by DogACTUAL

Yes. And i propose to make the various forms even more different from each other, mainly that one of them doesn't trigger a lock warning in the jet.

You've misunderstood the point of my post. Both missiles are the same thing, and if an aircraft receives lock warning being targeted by one, it will get a lock warning from the other too.

Originally Posted by DogACTUAL

Now only assign different values to the missiles, depending on the type they are to represent ingame, like turn rate, hit propability and how effectively they are stopped by the CM like i laid out in my original post. And stop heatseekers from triggering a missile warning, although that one might be difficult since you said both of the missile types work the same from a code perspective, but a workaround might very well be possible, maybe use the code from the laser guided missiles.

Well, if somebody wanted to add in chaff effects I wouldn't complain, but that's a lot of work for no benefit really. If it's something you're passionate about feel free to start animating(or modelling or however it would be done, idk).

Also "hit probability" is controlled primarily by the jet and missile vectors and well as some fun engine-internal collision detection code(that I don't understand, and idk if anyone on the team does). Realistically in the PR the latter is the limiting factor, and I don't think anybody hates themselves enough right now to try to change that.

[Rhino]

Liam is correct, there are only two/three forms of "targets" in the BF2 engine, "Heat" targets, which AA missiles lock onto, "Laser" targets which mostly air to ground weapons lock onto, and finally "Unique" targets, that CLOS missiles use to identify what the player who fired them is pointing/clicking at.

Due to EA/DICEs amazing coding of the BF2 engine, it isn't possible for us to add any more types of target objects to the engine

As such, it isn't possible for aircraft to tell the difference between IR and Radar guided missiles, they are in code terms, all "heat-seeking" missiles.

[DogACTUAL]

Thanks, like i said i suspected that the engine might not allow it because i figured if it was possible why didn't they already do it?
What about removing the missile warning generally though, would it be possible? Not to suggest implementing this for obvious reasons.
Just curious, because atgmgs used to trigger a warning signal in armored vehicles too in vanilla.

Also, does that mean that you will be able to use laser guided weapons on the frigate too instead of the anti ship missile since it has a laser target on it?

[Rhino]

Originally Posted by DogACTUAL

Also, does that mean that you will be able to use laser guided weapons on the frigate too instead of the anti ship missile since it has a laser target on it?

Luckily the Argentinians didn't have/use any Laser Guided Bombs/Missiles during the war, which means the Laser Target is free for the Exocet to use

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

Luckily the Argentinians didn't have/use any Laser Guided Bombs/Missiles during the war, which means the Laser Target is free for the Exocet to use

You can still rekt Frigate with dumb or retarded.