Air combat in ArmA2 [creators' input welcome]

[axure 10]

I realize that ArmA2 is meant to be a ground battle game, but in modern warfare it is impossible to ignore the air component. From the website and trailers I know there's gonna be quite a few types of aircraft.

The question is: What happens when both sides have attack jets and both decide to use them at the same time? It's obvious that every symmetric conflict should start with a struggle for air superiority. The one who commands the skies can pound the enemy quite freely. So how would a Su-34 vs F-35 fight look like? Are they limited to heat-seeking missiles? (Would seem so from website.) Do they have radars? Are the aircraft physical qualities (aerodynamic properties, thrust power, weight) simulated to allow for a fairly realistic dogfight?

Again, I realize this is no flight simulator, but this stuff is just too important to ignore, so I had to ask.

PS. I know there's an aircraft thread already, but it is related to helo handling, not air combat.

[sidhellfire 0]

It's obvious that every symmetric conflict

It's obvious that symetric conflicts do not exist, and never did.

I guess the only improvement possible would be changing "handling". There is not a chance to go for radar systems, weapon systems or even controls system at Spectrum Holobyte's level at early 90's.

As you have written, and I did in past, the game does not ignore that air context of battlefield, but it does not simulate each element on it. Simplified model still gives benefit of influencing the battle, ironically I find "simplified" flight model harder to operate than the one supplied with any flightsim. I stated that it's annoying in past, that the Falcon 3 can "feel" like an airplane, and run on 486dx1 machine, and modern game does not, but I got rid of all hopes, since it's a secondary objective for developers, and since we're not on top with primary ones I cannot believe in implementation of that appealing effect.

Edited May 16, 2009 by sidhellfire

[SASrecon 0]

should start with a struggle for air superiority.

well ARMA2 starts as an undercover operation not an all-out world war...

I don't think we need a new thread for this as Air combat can be discussed in the 'aircraft thread'

So how would a Su-34 vs F-35 fight look like? Are they limited to heat-seeking missiles?

good question though :p

i hope air combat in ARMA2 is waay better than just placing 20 su34s and 20 a10s as flying in the ARMA mission editor.

[Alex72 1]

Like you said, its not a flight sim. Concentration is on the ground where you have air complementing you. Like in VBS i guess they are used to simualte situations where a player fly the aircraft and have the ability to lock up a vehicle or use the MG so the infantry have to train on being out of sight of it etc. Its not there to use as in Falcon 4.0 with working radar and all the glory these vehicles have. Its in there to set up scenarios and instead of skipping them totally you see them on the sky, they fire at you, they are there! Thats better than to skip them. Having them work as in a sim (or semi sim) would need so much work. Soooo much work. change of engine and all i would guess. Im happy as it is even though i would like in the future a combined ARMA+DCS:BLACK SHARK+SBPro and whatever super realistic combat boat sims are out there mixed in as well. It seems BIS have enhanced the aircraft a bit from ARMA1 so im happy.

Alex

[An-225 0]

While it could easily be balanced by adding an Su-27 as Russia's dedicated Air-to-Air combat jet, it would have very little point I guess. I think the only real point in having the F-35 in the first place is the fact that it can VTOL and take off from the LHD.

Alex raises a good point in that A2A is not the primary role of airplanes in this game. A2G is. And like Sidhellfire, I find it harder to fly in ArmA than any flightsim.

[11aTony 0]

I hope that stall will be done a bit better and that you can recover from it with afterburner. F18 in arma1 is done well about this. Air to air combat in A1 is quite boring I should say. Air to ground though is a lot of fun. Aircraft are way to slow in A1 too so I will be very happy if planes will have realistic speeds, handling and multi-role weaponry (this is for sure-russ faction video). This tab to lock and fire thing is OK though. There is no need for realistic targeting and radar system. It would be nice though.

[easty 0]

I'd Agree that a focused land based game with simplified air/ground support is the genre of this game and to expand it in to full on air/air is asking a bit much and spreading the development thinner.

There really are not too many good flight sims out there, I think lockon mac is probably the best of recent times.. Also due to the weight limitation there really arn't any VTOL aircraft. Once you add a load out and fuel it becomes an impractical concept we have stovl aircraft. You wont see an aircraft going on a mission loaded up doing a vertical take-off.. maybe at an airshow.

[wipman 1]

Hi, yeah the main focus of the ArmA, OFP and ArmA2 is the ground combat, squad vs squad

or vs bigger OPFOR squad numbers; there isn't any F-18 in the ArmA, it was done by a

community member so... BIS haven't though about the afterburner, look at the ArmA's SU-34

for example, it should have afterburner, but it haven't it. I really belive that the air combat

(for planes at least) will be the same as in the ArmA, really really basic; i can't think in any

situation this days where a SU-34 will get to use it's cannon againist another air threat

mainly because i guess that they'll have their own low flyght path while the fighters fly

higher than 'em enlighting the radar contacts on the ground and transmitting 'em to the

Berkuts so they would aim their missiles and the fighters will stay focused on enlight those

radar contacts on the ground and scanning the skyes for their own safety and the air to

ground planes safety too. But this is something that we don't have to worry about in the

ArmA at least, because there is not any difference what so ever. I wish that there were

some SU-27 or Su-33 to take the air to air role and don't leave this task for the Berkuts,

but... i belive that this don't gonna happen. Let's C ya

[11aTony 0]

Well there wasnt any revive thing originaly in ArmA 1 and it will be in ArmA 2.

[Commando84 0]

Planes will have basic countermeasures available i read somewhere or saw in one of the youtube videos.

Planes can do some rolling to left or right side, do loops and fly upside down and there is the ability shut off engines while in air and there is the basic auto landing system that takes you to the nearest airport and lands the plane.

in A1 aircraft could only have cannon and missile or cannon and bombs but some tweaks in game engine allows aircraft to have more different weapons in same aircraft.

If you check pics of A-10 it shows both bombs, missiles and its cannon :)

[ziiip 1]

What is this trash talk? Air is very important too, just as armor warfare.

[An-225 0]

This is not exactly a fully fledged flight simulation.

Air to air may be important when the map is 10,000 km2, and when we have E-3s and KC-10s.

But the map is 225km2, and we don't have much to protect other than a C-130.

Therefore, air-to-air is just not as important.

[Hyp3rdyn3 10]

But the map is 225km2, and we don't have much to protect other than a C-130.

Therefore, air-to-air is just not as important.

BF2 has smaller maps than ArmA but air superiority, ie A2A, is very important.

[An-225 0]

Air superiority is important to a degree, but just not worth adding extra airplanes and missiles.

I think the F-35 and the Su-34 would be about on par with each other in terms of maneuverability. The Su-34 would be a little sluggish due to its fighter-bomber nature, but the F-35 is not exactly high alpha material either.

Either way, until the map expands and we have full air support, Archers and Sidewinders are fine.

[alan8325 10]

I don't mind if the air-to-air options are limited as long as the capabilities of weapons and equipment provided are done realistically. I'd rather have only two types of air-to-air missiles, such as AIM-9 and AA-11, and only ground attack-type aircraft, but everything done to the highest degree of realism possible, than many aircraft and weapon options but everything done with more simplicity.

If some part of the game is secondary in priority, like aircraft for example, reduce the effort required for development by reducing options available but keep the realism. Don't reduce the complexity and realism just to be able to include more aircraft and weapons. More options can always be added by modders later.

Probably in the minority here but that's my .02.

Edited May 17, 2009 by alan8325

[walker 0]

Hi all

The proper solution to putting a true flight sim into ArmA is the route VBS 2 chose, HLA.

What we need is for games to be HLA compatible.

There already is an HLA interface for MS Flight sim.

If some one was to put an HLA mod into ArmA that would solve the problem.

HLA would allow Steel Beasts, Black Shark, and Falcon 4 to interface all the top mill sim games. That said I think future versions of ArmA and its MODS possibly even as soon as ArmA 2 will be as capable as Steel Beasts, Black Shark but a full fixed wing simulator as capable as Falcon 4 is a long ways off.

Kind Regards walker

Edited May 17, 2009 by walker

[Alex72 1]

...And once again we (the community) can create whatever vehicles we want to whatever complexity level (with in the engine frame) we want...

So the "ooh there is too little planes..." remarks is just a waste of breath. ARMA2 has it more balanced than it was in ARMA1, and we should be happy for that instead of gaping like little kids for more and more and more.

Go say on the DR forum that its too little jets. ;)

[axure 10]

I agree current number of air platforms is perfectly sufficient, as is the small range of a2a weapons for a 200sq km world. But that doesn't mean air combat is not important and not having AWACS or tankers doesn't change anything.

The problem is - if I can deny your planes access to the battle field, then I get a big advantage because I can take out, for instance, your mechanized units (tanks, APCs) at will and there's little you can do about it. Thus, just a handful of planes (like three) can totally tilt the balance and give an easy victory.

(BTW, how is aircraft rearmament done, after I deployed all weapons? Is there airfield staff that literally puts missiles onto planes, or do they appear automagically after landing?)

Now, assuming that in the beginning both sides were given equal chances (like Blue have 4 JSFs, Red have 4 Su-34s), it becomes very important how fair and sensible is their fight for air dominance, because the winning side has the upper hand in the whole battle, as explained above.

So I don't care if it's just heat-seeking missiles and guns, and just two a2a-capable platforms on each side, as long as the struggle for air superiority isn't resolved in a very silly "arcade" manner but one that fits well in this very impressive war game.

BTW, in the end I'm gonna buy ArmA2 anyway, it's just so great and gives so much freedom that I won't be able to resist it. :D

[Yoma 0]

Just a minor remark on air superiority.

It is worth nothing if the enemy has enough AA capabilities (Strela, Stinger, ZSU etc) For all i know you can make a map where enemy has nothing but infantry but still beats fully air and armour supported troops.

As in real life, infantry has the very large advantage of being small, being able to mix in with civilians and being able to carry very capable AA and AT weapons.

Last time i checked Nato troops are still having a very hard time in Afghanistan, so i guess that proves my point...

[Squint 0]

I agree current number of air platforms is perfectly sufficient, as is the small range of a2a weapons for a 200sq km world. But that doesn't mean air combat is not important and not having AWACS or tankers doesn't change anything.

Air combat is only important if it's made a focus of the mission.

The problem is - if I can deny your planes access to the battle field, then I get a big advantage because I can take out, for instance, your mechanized units (tanks, APCs) at will and there's little you can do about it.

I suppose that's true, especially if the mission-maker ignores all of these ground-based anti-air assets. You're just crafting a scenario in your mind that supports your opinions, which isn't hard to do.

(BTW, how is aircraft rearmament done, after I deployed all weapons? Is there airfield staff that literally puts missiles onto planes, or do they appear automagically after landing?)

Rearmament is done however the mission maker sets it up to be done.

[evilnate 0]

What happens when both sides have attack jets and both decide to use them at the same time?

They attack each other.

So how would a Su-34 vs F-35 fight look like?

They would fly around trying to lock on to each other, in the air.

Are they limited to heat-seeking missiles?

I don't know if the heat seeking is actually simulated, but they aren't limited to missiles. They have cannons too.

Do they have radars?

They use the same "radar" technology as all other vehicles.

Are the aircraft physical qualities (aerodynamic properties, thrust power, weight) simulated to allow for a fairly realistic dogfight?

There are some physics modeled, but not too much. An A-10 will take more runway to take off than say a AV-8 would.

Those are my speculative answers based of ArmA 1. :D

[thaFunkster 0]

... Also due to the weight limitation there really arn't any VTOL aircraft. Once you add a load out and fuel it becomes an impractical concept we have stovl aircraft. You wont see an aircraft going on a mission loaded up doing a vertical take-off.. maybe at an airshow.

Well, surely the F35 can do VTOL fully loaded? It can supercruise, so I am guessing it has a greater than 1:1 thrust - to weight ratio? That would mean it could take off vertically, even the F15 has a greater thrust to weight ratio than 1:1.

--------

An-225 and alan8235: I agree. We are not buying this game as a flight sim, it is primarily a ground warfare sim, as long as what is happening in the air looks realistic from the ground, that is what matters, the level of simulated detail that is actually going on is not important, as long as it looks and sounds right.

Edited May 18, 2009 by thaFunkster

[thaFunkster 0]

...

But the map is 225km2, and we don't have much to protect other than a C-130.

Therefore, air-to-air is just not as important.

Kind of true, but also not true. Its all about air superiority, controlling the skies so that you can bomb the hell out of your enemy, air to air fighters are needed for this task.

However, as we will be mostly looking at things from the ground, I dont mind if there are no dogfights going on. THe fact that they have implemented realistic looking (and sounding) aircraft that fly in formation goes along way toward adding immersion.

There is nothing better than the roar of a jet as it flies overhead, and if this has been done well, I will be really happy. That sound gets my blood pumping.

[Alex72 1]

There really are not too many good flight sims out there, I think lockon mac is probably the best of recent times..

DCS:Black Shark is better. ;) http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ (made by the lockon team).

Sorry for OT but it had to be said.

[thaFunkster 0]

Quote:

So how would a Su-34 vs F-35 fight look like?

...

They would fly around trying to lock on to each other, in the air.

....

So you mean they wouldnt fly round on the ground trying to attack each other??? Isnt that against the laws of physics or something?

Sry, just had too be a smart arse :p