Lock-on Missiles (AA & Jets)

[[R-CON]Outlawz]

If the heat lock is on the nose, doesn't that mean that AA missiles incoming from the rear have the highest chance of killing the aircraft?

Give a missile a 50m proximity fuse and a 100m blast radius and it just might, except now its got the blast radius of a bloody 500lb bomb! Great work.

Couldn't this be tweaked via material settings by giving it a small amount of damage so it doesn't kill everything, but the modifier for AA damage vs. aircraft/heli material is multiplied several times so it only kills those?

[CAS_117]

Originally Posted by [R-CON]Outlawz

Couldn't this be tweaked via material settings by giving it a small amount of damage so it doesn't kill everything, but the modifier for AA damage vs. aircraft/heli material is multiplied several times so it only kills those?

Sure but it means that 1 missile into a base will kill all aircraft pretty much. And I know people don't use this tactic much, but I dumb fire missiles into the ground directly below a transport chopper that is attempting to do terrain masking. The 50m blast will do the rest.

Having a blast radius that big spells trouble even if it only affects aircraft. I'd wait till 1.5 is done.

To answer your first question, yes, a rear or nose shot is ideal. You'll have the minimum possible hitbox deflection if the planes not turning. This is why snapshooting the missiles before an aircraft can turn works so well; In a turn the vertical deflection is very small, but so is the actual aircraft's height. Generally the killable surface is nothing.

[Logaritm]

here is how not to get shot down by AA:

DON'T GO THERE

i'm getting really feed up at people thinking that just by getting in a tank/plane/heli you will be harder to kill, but guess what, there is weapons out there that's made with the only purpose to kill that tank/plane/heli your driving, so why would not that weapon do it's job

[CAS_117]

Well by that logic you shouldn't ever attack another soldier because he has a rifle and a rifle is meant to kill you. Its not rock paper scissors. Think of each weapons role as, "capable of, but not limited to". Ranking threats relative to yourself means that when you are done with one, you can instantly move to the other.

[joethepro36]

Quite, but all the same there is a mentality that planes should be perfectly able to take on aa and tanks should be able to knock out helos and other such nonsense.

He's just trying to say, "i'm fed up of people attacking their hard counters".

[Snazz]

Originally Posted by crAck_sh0t

This just sounds like a rant from someone who gets owned by AA alot.

Oh yes, just a rant because one individual doesn't like being shot down period, how conveniently simple.

I wouldn't care if i was being 'owned' by AA that someone actually aimed, you don't see me posting several threads about being killed by other weapons. I only have a problem with the lock-on system because it takes nothing but looking around you to shoot down any aircraft the majority of the time.

Originally Posted by crAck_sh0t

a dumbed down PR is frankly a sh*t PR.

The lock-on system is dumbed down, doesn't get much easier than auto-spotting and auto-aiming.

Originally Posted by rampo93(FIN)

disagree. I think its pretty easy to evade AA.

You may be an awesome pilot who's got a good tactic for AA evasion, but if you're spotted by AA first they can fire a missile at you before you even hear that tone.

Originally Posted by IAJTHOMAS

How often do you see BMPs downing jets on Kashan at the moment?

What the BMP can hit is irrelevant as I never suggested using them as AA and their cannon is nothing like an AA cannon.

Originally Posted by IAJTHOMAS

How often in previous versions did tunguska's down jets that weren't carelessly flying down the AA's throat?

Previous versions? Are you talking about the dodgy lock-on missiles?

The Tunguska's the easiest of all AA weapons, you just have to spend some time in a populated Kashan training server to see how effortlessly one can deny airspace.

Originally Posted by Oddsodz

Now. You are forgetting the balance from the jets side of things. When a jet drops a bomb on target (meaning it's lazed and all that jazz). It's a one shot/bomb kill. So the AA also I believe needs to be a 1 shot kill of sorts. That is the way it is right now.

No, You're forgetting the skill and teamwork involved in keeping the aircraft operational and armed, whilst accurately bombing targets. It's nothing like sitting on your ass in AA spinning the mouse around till you pick up something.

Originally Posted by Oddsodz

Jets are the most deadly thing in game.

If they're unchallenged yes, but they're rare in PR and good pilots are even rarer. There's a lot to counter the jet's power as it is without giving the other side such an easy way to shoot them down.

[Zoddom]

Why do you want to take out "lock-on" weapons??? WHAT?
it would be at least as unreal as Unreal to have a jet without guided weapons. There is no AA missile which you dont have to lock on with. same for SA. it doesnt make sense.
I agree that we could use some REAL infrared missiles, like the sidewinder, grail or gramlin, which dont trigger an alarm. but i think this would be hard to include, because afaik theres no difference between stationary AA missiles, which use to be sa-7, and the grissom of the tunguska ingame. and in addition youd have to make them less effective against flair-using jets and IN addition to the addition youd have to make an extra radar-countermessure like chaffs or ecm ...

edit: @ snazz:
the trick is to use flairs BEFORE somethin locks on you.

[CAS_117]

Originally Posted by joethepro36

Quite, but all the same there is a mentality that planes should be perfectly able to take on aa and tanks should be able to knock out helos and other such nonsense.

He's just trying to say, "i'm fed up of people attacking their hard counters".

Well tbh the current AA in PR is fairly easy to neutralize. Not because of accuracy but mostly due to countermeasures and lack of early warning. 1000m view dist/ 200m/s = 5 seconds to hit you. Not really great odds for the gunner. So I really have trouble accepting that the anti-air is overpowered or too easy. And that's only when no one knows where you are. If you get lased as an AAV you may as well get out.

[Logaritm]

Originally Posted by CAS_117

Well by that logic you shouldn't ever attack another soldier because he has a rifle and a rifle is meant to kill you

that not what i meant, one of the infantry man's role is to attack other infantry men's

[CAS_117]

Originally Posted by Logaritm

that not what i meant, one of the infantry man's role is to attack other infantry men's

Google "SEAD".