Project Reality Forums

Yeah removing the HUD element would be a good start, at least then people have to spot for themselves (both ID'ing the target and telling when it's the right time to shoot).

Makes more sense when it comes to heat seeking weapons also.

I have hit aircraft coming straight at me with AA guns on kashan training and it didnt leave a scratch on them. BF2 hitboxes does not like fast moving objects. The proximity ammunition must be implemented well if we remove missiles.

Snazz wrote:Yeah removing the HUD element would be a good start, at least then people have to spot for themselves (both ID'ing the target and telling when it's the right time to shoot).

Makes more sense when it comes to heat seeking weapons also.

hmm how do you identify and "lock" on a target with an igla irl?

badmojo420 wrote:I kind of like the idea of having no hud for portable aa. But you couldn't do it with the limited ranges of those weapons in pr. The real range of the SA7 for example is 3700m now the range in game is under 500. Judging if an object is withing 3700m of you is pretty easy. So you don't really need a computer to tell you that in real life. But in a video game, judging if something is 400 or 600m away, is really hard. Especially when it's in the sky and moving. Maybe keep the distance to target, but put it at the bottom, instead of on the box like it is now.

I don't understand why it is significant. The range will tell you how far away the target is... but it won't tell you what the target is or if it's good to shoot. Waiting for visual ID on the target would be best, so you know whether it is dropping flares, or whether it's at a good angle to shoot (shooting at a jet head-on is usually not advised, whereas hitting the jet in it's rear/oblique is best... the range doesn't tell you it's heading). Besides all that, there is the old 'not realistic' claim, since no HUD on the handheld launcher means, well, no HUD. As for AAVs and stationary AA platforms, I would assume that it would be shown, but I've never used/experienced one being used, so I don't have a clue.

Yeah, it could definitely be left in... but I don't see really why it needs to be there in the first place, you know?

hmm how do you identify and "lock" on a target with an igla irl?

Well, for one, the Stinger AA missle uses a fixed irons setup with the 'aim point' being the area in the middle of the circle.

The Igla looks to use a similar setup of simple circle-sights (wikipedia has a decent shot of the launcher itself and the sights pop off of the tube and are about the size of an eye.), and I would assume it functions the same way.

When you begin locking onto a target, the launcher will emit a yelp when it's locked and I think it gives an intermittent yelp while locking, there's a video around the internet somewhere, just can't find it as of yet.

Celestial1 wrote:I don't understand why it is significant. The range will tell you how far away the target is... but it won't tell you what the target is or if it's good to shoot. Waiting for visual ID on the target would be best, so you know whether it is dropping flares, or whether it's at a good angle to shoot (shooting at a jet head-on is usually not advised, whereas hitting the jet in it's rear/oblique is best... the range doesn't tell you it's heading). Besides all that, there is the old 'not realistic' claim, since no HUD on the handheld launcher means, well, no HUD. As for AAVs and stationary AA platforms, I would assume that it would be shown, but I've never used/experienced one being used, so I don't have a clue.

Yeah, it could definitely be left in... but I don't see really why it needs to be there in the first place, you know?

I made no mention of the heading, target id, or anything of that nature. Half the time you don't even need to ID the target due to the limited amounts of aircraft on most maps, but that's another topic altogether. What i was saying is that the unrealistic short range of the AA launchers in game, require us to unrealistically worry about what range the aircraft is from us.

In real life, if they can see it, it's usually under the 3700m range of the missile. In the game however, you can see a black hawk flying on kashan at up to 1000m away, double what the range of the missile is.

I can see you saying that we should be able to tell visually how far something is. As that should be part of our skills as AA crew. But this is a 3d world on a 2d surface. I would say that most players could not tell you if a hovering apache was 350 or 450 m away just from looking at it.

Best solution would be to remove the range indicator and give the portable AA system some realistic ranges. But then you would have people locking onto aircraft from across the map. So maybe just an increase to the view distance of most maps. Tho i'm not holding my breath on that one.

Well obviously if you can lock on to a target, fire, and the missile fails to reach the target (flares and etc aside), something is wrong. The missile should only lock-on to targets it could hit, anyway.

Having a lock range around 100m out of view distance (as I believe they are on maps like Kashan) would mean that locking onto the target ensures that a hit is possible, but IDing the target gives you a better chance to judge when is the best time to fire, rather than trying to fire beyond visual range.

Also, if all friendly air targets could be locked on to, it would encourage visual confirmation on the target or to checking the map to ensure no friendly aircraft in the area. The ranges on these kinds of handheld launchers and other AA platforms also adds to it's ability to cause friendly fire. So if semi-realistic ranges on AA missles were implemented, 1500m lock ranges could be feasible... But without the HUD changes (and, preferably friendly-locking to avoid firing and destroying aircraft from unthinkable ranges and require some thought on whether you should fire or not, it could prove to be overpowered. With them, it gets semi-realistic ranges and realistic targeting, and realistic fire discretion, it becomes much more viable to have slightly larger AA ranges.

You don't use the AA kit much do you? You can lock way further than you can fire, especially in the case of the SA7. And limiting the targeting to only within your range wouldn't work well with such a small range. You would see people resorting to dumb firing rockets because a fast moving huey could never stay in their radius long enough to ever lock him.

The part about visually id'ing the target you've locked could be countered by just looking at your map. If there is no aircraft in that direction, fire away.

Also as soon as you lock an aircraft you need to fire, or the aircraft will bug out and you won't have a chance. Because with the way the warning system is, they'll get the warning shortly after you've obtain a lock. No matter if you've fired or not. So adding just a sound for locking would effectively scare away lots of aircraft without ever seeing them, only ever hearing a beep.

With all the limitations, the current system really is the best option.

badmojo420 wrote:You don't use the AA kit much do you? You can lock way further than you can fire, especially in the case of the SA7. And limiting the targeting to only within your range wouldn't work well with such a small range. You would see people resorting to dumb firing rockets because a fast moving huey could never stay in their radius long enough to ever lock him.

No, no I don't, but then again I don't often 'see' things beyond my viewdistance either (I can aim and lock onto something beyond visual range, and I can fire at it, but how do I know it hit?)...

If you could lock on to and FIRE AT (as in the missle will actually aim for the target) a target that is 1500m away, would you not see that as a good thing? Instead of having a system where the lock seems to be larger than your actual range of attacking, you'd have one where 'lock range' and 'missle range' be equal. It would allow you to kill targets over 1500m away, but the usual countermeasures (flares, leaving hostile airspace) can still be used to prevent damage and put the missle off course; you just wouldn't see it for yourself, so you'd be firing 'blind' in a way.

The part about visually id'ing the target you've locked could be countered by just looking at your map. If there is no aircraft in that direction, fire away.

Yes. If there wasn't a friendly aircraft in the vicinity you would obviously be able to fire at will. And that's acceptable; BVR (beyond visual range) firing is done with these launchers, I'm sure, due to the extreme ranges they possess... but nothings to say that the flares dropped from the target won't steer the missile off course even at that distance. Seeing the target for yourself simply gives a better likelyhood you will hit, since you would have to judge the timing and angle to fire to avoid being decoyed by flares or to miss the target due to an impossible turn for the missle (firing head on, for instance, is bad if the target can evade the missle, because the missle cannot do a 180 in that short time).

Also as soon as you lock an aircraft you need to fire, or the aircraft will bug out and you won't have a chance. Because with the way the warning system is, they'll get the warning shortly after you've obtain a lock. No matter if you've fired or not. So adding just a sound for locking would effectively scare away lots of aircraft without ever seeing them, only ever hearing a beep.

The sound for locking does not occur for the pilot. It only plays a full on lock warning. With these longer ranges, however, an AAV on Kashan could begin obtaining a lock when a ground attack jet goes for a target parallel to the AA, and then fire when the aircraft is more likely to be hit (by firing when the aircraft's engine is directly visible, etc)...

Also, with some other changes like pilots having incentive to bail out, and AA being able to 'turn off' locking mechanisms temporarily etc, AA could become a full threat that is still balanced enough to be avoided but powerful enough to destroy an enemy air asset with relative ease when it lets its guard down.

With all the limitations, the current system is the best option.

The current system is definitely a good one, I agree. But I wouldn't mind seeing an alternative system (whether it makes it in game or not is another question) of extended ranges for AA missiles in exchange for some other functionalities, to make it powerful but still balanced.

What I would be interested in is IL2 Flight Simulator flying, with WWII planes, flak cannons for firing (no auto lock, more skill like mentioned above). That would be cool...but it wouldn't work with PR because it is MODERN. Reality will never be "reality" in a video game. IL2 is the most real flight simulator for WWII (minus some crazy stuff), and to my knowledge (and after watching someone get lit up by the laser-guided missle in game) PR is the most real, at least looking and sounding, as it gets.

I just started playing PR so don't kill me for my opinions just yet. These are just thoughts...

Grace and Peace,

-Jagger.

Jagger225 wrote:What I would be interested in is IL2 Flight Simulator flying, with WWII planes, flak cannons for firing (no auto lock, more skill like mentioned above). That would be cool...but it wouldn't work with PR because it is MODERN.

I was thinking something more along the lines of Shilkas and VADS:
ZSU-23-4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M163 VADS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Shilka would suit MEC and other factions of it's type considering what they're already using, but VADS is a bit too old for the US.

Admittedly it would seem odd to have only them types of AA in a modern/near-future setting from a realism perspective, but as mentioned earlier PR is already bending reality in favor of game play in certain aspects and straight-firing, proximity-fused missiles could replace existing lock-on missiles.

The vulcan cannon on VADS is in stationary turret form on maps like Qinling, not sure if they're actually still used IRL.

Anyway, I'd be pretty happy if the heat seeking missile vehicles/launchers didn't have HUDs.

The M163 PIVADS and its towed counterpart, the M167, have not been in US service for quite a while. The Israelis still use them, but their versions are also fitted with Stinger missiles. The only towed, ground-mounted anti-aircraft cannon in US service (and I believe the UK have purchased or leased a couple of them) is the C-RAM LPWS (land-based Phalanx). However, it is radar controlled; not sure if it even has an operator controlled, optical tracking mode.

There is an anti-aircraft ground mount for the M2HB, the M63, but I have never heard of it being adopted by the UK, or even used by the US since Vietnam.

The bottom line is that manually tracked/operated anti-aircraft guns or machine-guns (towed or self-propelled) just aren't there for some states.

No HUDS on the man-portable, heat-seeking missiles can be done, since that is realistic, however, some vehicles do have them.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Eddie Baker;1111554']No HUDS on the man-portable, heat-seeking missiles can be done, since that is realistic, however, some vehicles do have them.[/quote]

Do we know how accurate these HUDs are in game versus their counterparts (not in terms of how the HUD is layed out, but how it displays that it is locked on and the like)?

From my post, about AA with HUD (AAVs, stationary AA, wherever it makes sense to be there)

[quote="Celestial1""]And perhaps with AA that does have a HUD to indicate locks, that all non-locked targets would have no symbol surrounding them...You get a lock-on symbol over the aircraft (just like when you lock on now) but all the flares and other targets on screen will remain 'invisible' unless they are locked directly.

Also, perhaps slightly smaller 'lock' areas on weaponry would be acceptable. Instead of the entire circle being able to lock onto the target, perhaps a smaller circle near the center would initiate the lock, and the outer circle would be the limits of the lock being maintained (this way, it would take a bit of aiming and keeping aim on the target to lock, but then after the lock has been established there is a bit of leniency in holding the lock, as it now has the target identified among other elements in the air).


I'm not sure how realistic most of this is, seeing as I've never been in the military or experienced the use of Anti-Air weaponry first hand, but I think it may help a bit with gameplay.[/quote]

I think, but I don´t fully know, the the most realistic way for basic manpads would be no visual lock indication whatsoever, just point, wait then when locked "bzzzzzzzz".

[R-DEV]Eddie Baker wrote:The M163 PIVADS and its towed counterpart, the M167, have not been in US service for quite a while. The Israelis still use them, but their versions are also fitted with Stinger missiles. The only towed, ground-mounted anti-aircraft cannon in US service (and I believe the UK have purchased or leased a couple of them) is the C-RAM LPWS (land-based Phalanx). However, it is radar controlled; not sure if it even has an operator controlled, optical tracking mode.

I smell a commander deployable asset perhaps?

Well,the only aspect worth ranting about AAs and their missiles are the impact they make on dogfights i guess.Because there isnt any.For that i'd propose a longer lock on time only for air vs. air,but i guess it is either hardcoded or wont even be read in this thread.

Other than that,if u keep moving and popping flares in danger zone you wont get killed most of the time,if u want to hover/fly low and spot targets for yourself(or yourselves) that'll lead to trouble.

Project reality tournament,i believe,is the best experience you can get from PR and observe the limitations/capabilities of the mod or engine or any equipment.In tournament, AA's have absolutely no efffect on AC except on attack choppers ONLY in quinling and Kashan 32.

That is with the fact that,there is always a number of AAs operated within the area at all times,by both teams in PRT.In pub game,you wont even have that dense cloud of AA to fight against with,there'll be only one or two most of the time.So rework your strategies and be a little bit more patient in the cockpit and use those flares before the lock tone,and dont hesitate to land just for flares...

What should be differnt is the ability to get lock on, not the ability to evade the lock on.

In real life if you were to get locked on by a SAM your pretty much F***ed however in real life getting lock on is nowhere near as easy as it is in PR. IRL aircraft will either be flying a lot higher than in pr or nap of the earth, when flying nap of the earth the short time window for lock on to be achived is there, and at high altitude your obviously going to have a harder time locking on, combine that with things like electronic jamming and obviously flares and chaff and you can see there is a lot more to be locked on.

Consider that most/all modern combat aircraft will have a threat warning panel showing where radar signals are coming. This was represented in earlier versions of PR but removed since you don't get any warning with heat seeking missiles such as the AIM-9. However you would receive warning from missiles like the AIM-120.

For a compromise i think that the amount of time needed to lock on should be doubled, for all AA weapons. At the moment the insta lock nature makes dog fights non exsitant/frustriating with the uber maneuverable sidewinders. And that someone in an AAV just needs to look at the jet and they have lock (despite hitman 2.5s excessive bragging of how he shot me down in an avenger once).

I think that a longer lock on time would represent that it is harder to get a lock IRL but still keep it that once you are locked on you will have a hard time evading. Such a system will keep alive pilots that fly low well, or play it safe by staying high.

a problem i have is that in jets you don't even have to wait for a lock to fire a missile for it to hit, just fly behind them and fire and they are likely to be destroyed, with a 0.5second warning at best, such would totally negate what i said above.

SuperTimo wrote:For a compromise i think that the amount of time needed to lock on should be doubled, for all AA weapons. At the moment the insta lock nature makes dog fights non exsitant/frustriating with the uber maneuverable sidewinders. And that someone in an AAV just needs to look at the jet and they have lock (despite hitman 2.5s excessive bragging of how he shot me down in an avenger once).

I think that a longer lock on time would represent that it is harder to get a lock IRL but still keep it that once you are locked on you will have a hard time evading. Such a system will keep alive pilots that fly low well, or play it safe by staying high.

Good point.

However, as it is currently I think it would cause issues for ground AA trying to target jets, especially when the pilot only dips out of the clouds to fire an AGM, then abruptly pulls up.

Now, to counter this, AA missiles could also have a longer lock range of about 1500m (and, of course, everything that can be locked would be able to be killed if countermeasures etc were not employed).

If this range makes them a little too overpowered (being able to lock onto anything within 1500m is a big thing, as it is), then my suggestion of removing HUD for MANPADS launchers, and reducing HUD for AA weaponry has HUDs in real life to, in game, only show a lock symbol on targets it is actually locked onto, and not show 'lockboxes' for the other targets or flares on screen.

This would make it so that the AA takes twice the time to lock, but has more time to react after they actually spot the jet (it would be hard to lock before the jet was in visual view, but keeping the lock onto him after he is out of view would be extremely easy with HUD-enabled AA weapons, and somewhat easy with MANPADS).

How do lock-notification systems in jets work IRL? Do they start when the missile is launched, or when the AA has locked on, before launching? Perhaps this could also be realistically reflected in-game, if the missiles (or certain missiles) only give off warnings when the missile is fired.

Perhaps with these changes, locking could be just as easily stopped, whereas after the aircraft was locked on to, it would have a harder time losing lock (perhaps losing lock would require dropping x amount of flares... dropping 2 flares as opposed to 1 when a missile is already in flight could be easier said than done...).

Depends on the missile. Heat seeking or IR generally can only be detected after launch I think, whereas laser and radar guided can be detected before launch. Such creating the situation where an F16 that was shot down by a missile fired dumb and guided by radar the last few seconds so that the F16 couldn´t detect the launcher and destroy it before it could launch.

Engineer wrote:MANPAD's do have 'HUD's. But they don't have some magical seeker which wanders around the scenery searching for heat signature.

There is one circle which is used for target search, after you get a lock the HUD lightens an other circle on your screen. This circle is calculated to be the best intercept course towards target. Then you put the target you are following inside this circle, and launch. All this can be done less than 5 seconds.

whats up with MANPAD pre-launch setup? for Igla/Strela its about 12-15 seconds, but dont they use coolant for IR seeker in missile? so if you tried to lock but didnt succeed can you "re-use" it, or you need to refill coolant?