[0868] Heavy Anti-Tank - Missile Guidance Activation Range (Minor)

[M.Warren]

Test Location: Local Server and Dedicated Server
<Note: This has been noticed from this build and many previous builds of Project Reality on both live and local servers.>
Map Name: N/A
Map Size: N/A
Map Grid Reference: N/A
Kit/Weapon Name: SRAW, PF-98, Eryx / Heavy Anti-Tank
Vehicle Name: N/A

Description:
I have noticed that previous builds extending up to now that Heavy Anti-Tank kits being used by various factions are not properly functioning. I'm hoping that this bug report will make it in time in hopes to fix the Heavy Anti-Tank issues that have been going on for several builds now, prior to the final build of the v0.86 patch.

First, the U.S./British SRAW has been noted to only have it's missile guidance system engage after 200 meters. The PLA (Chinese) PF-98 Heavy Anti-Tank appears to have no missile guidance system at all (as I am unsure if this is the operational characteristics of the weapon and missile design to begin with) and is in need of in-depth testing.

Second the M.E.C. Eryx performs the best out of all the Heavy Anti-Tank weapons and seems operationally correct. However, I feel it is still in need of having it's values checked for accuracy and proper functionality if this is the intended operation or not.

The problem here is that the SRAW, Eryx and PF-98 are all in dire need of missile guidance system updating. As lately, it seems to be almost completely dysfunctional. Most Heavy Anti-Tank weapons have an estimate of a 50-300 meter average engagement distance. The missile guidance system of the SRAW does not activate until the missile has flew over 200 meters. As for the PF-98, the missile never enters a guidance mode at all to begin with.

Coincidentally, the malfunctioning guidance systems on these missiles make it clear that these Heavy Anti-Tank weapons are frequently "dumbfired" forcing the operator to have to judge where the missile will land, rather than launching it and guiding it towards its target. The current methods of operation is not what I would consider to be intended.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Select a PF-98 or SRAW Heavy Anti-Tank weapon. (The Eryx performs marginally well, however as stated before, it needs to be checked and verified for proper operation or standardized with the other available HAT weaponry.)

2. Select a target to fire at a range that is 200 meters away or less.

3. Attempt to aim about 10-15 meters away from the target.

4. After aiming AWAY from the intended target, launch the HAT missile toward the target and attempt to "guide" the missile to it's target with the sighting system.

5. Notice how the HAT missile is not guided for the majority of the travel distance (or is otherwise completely unguided) and misses it's intended target.

Video Evidence:
N/A

Screenshot Evidence:
1. <Note: Hanging street sign is designated as the target.>


2. <Note: Aiming away from intended target between 10-15 meters.>


3. <Note: Firing missile and attempting to guide it towards the intended target.>


4. <Note: The Heavy Anti-Tank missile completely misses its intended target as the guidance system does not activate soon enough to maneuver into the target.>



5. <Note: The below image has been posted as a reference in order to show that the missile explosion is capable of being rendered at the range of 200 meters. Thus, pointing out that it simply isn't a video issue making it appear as if the missile is not hitting it's target. This picture simply acts to confirm the discrepancies to be accurate.>


Video Card:
ATI Radeon X850XT AGP 8x 256MB

Graphics Settings:
Display Mode - 1024x768 @ 75Hz
Overall Quality - Custom

Terrain - High
Effects - Medium
Geometry - High
Texture - Medium
Lighting - Medium
Dynamic Shadows - Low
Dynamic Light - Low
Anti-Aliasing - Off
Texture Filtering - Low
View Distance Scale - 100%

[=Romagnolo=]

just to confirm, the PLA AT has no missile guide, this is how their HAT works normally IRL.

[Robbi]

yep, and also why test HAT on a map that it will never be used. Test it on Kashan at ranges that would be used normally in game and see if it works/doesnt then.

[Scot]

On a final note, you know how quickly the SRAW guidance system starts in real life?

[Charity Case]

I'm pretty sure the actual SRAW cannot be guided. Instead, it has direct-fire and fire-and-forget modes.

[Scot]

Predator Light Anti-Armour Missile - Army Technology

True, it says on that site:

The Lockheed Martin Predator is a lightweight close-range anti-tank missile system which complements the Javelin anti-tank missile. The shoulder-mounted fire and forget missile weighs less than 10kg. Predator has a longer range and higher lethality than the AT4 and other systems it is designed to replace.

Probably got the wrong AT, but I think that's it

[[R-DEV]dbzao]

I don't think we changed anything on that weapon...

[Charity Case]

The differences in the HATs aren't really bugs. The PF-98 is meant to be unguided. The SRAW isn't portrayed realistically, so whether it's guided or unguided is kind of a moot point. And the ERYX is wire-guided, in reality and in-game. Sure, there are some inconsistencies, but they don't prevent these weapons from fulfilling their in-game role.

[ReaperMAC]

Mentioned this back in v.756 testing IIRC, pretty sure they were meant to be like that to prevent 'HAT Sniping' (which is a thing in the past now).

[M.Warren]

Alright, now that a few things have been answered, we've narrowed it down some.

PF-98 Sinodefense
The PF-98 is unguided in reality which is fine and dandy, so we can scratch that. Although as I was reading a source, it stated that it was guided, however I'm under the impression that it has electronics on board to judge the distance and elevation needed to connect to the target. So in the sense of PR, this is a feature that isn't exactly capable of being integrated, so this leaves much of it to the user as it is currently.

Specifications

Calibre: 120mm
Launcher length: 1,191mm
Launcher weight: N/A
Propulsion: Solid rocket motor
Range: 800m (HEAT); or 1,800m (HE)
Depth of penetration (static): 800mm (HEAT)
Rate of fire: 4~6 rds per minute
Projectile weight: 6.3kg (HEAT); 7.5kg (HE)
Field of fire: (Battalion version on tripod) Elevation -6°~+30°; Traverse 360°

The only thing I would suggest changing about the PF-98 is giving the missile a flat trajectory. Or at least give it a flater trajectory than it currently has up to 800 meters or so. This is to simulate that the soldier had properly programed the on board electronics to fire at the target. However, the likelihood of it hitting or missing is now dependent upon the player using it. I feel it's a fair trade as most of the guided Heavy Anti-Tank kits travel slightly slower and can be guided, over a high velocity unguided missile system.

As for the Eyrx, it appears to handle better than most Heavy Anti-Tank weapons it seems to have adequate guidance characteristics. So I am assuming that it is under operational order, especially after seeing a few videos myself. If there's any fine details to be made, that's out of my hands.

Lastly, the SRAW is a guided anti-tank weapon system. It states that it's capable of detecting and engaging targets within a brief period of time after being launched. As in, within the first 4-8 feet of travel outside of the launcher tube.

The video below states at 0:48 about the SRAW:

"This is a fire and forget weapon. For both moving and stationary targets. The operator tracks the target for 2 seconds, fires, and the weapon does the rest."

<Note: As you can also see, the video depicts information relating to stationary and moving targets as well. Ironically enough in PR, the missile guidance system in PR appears to engage at a distance between 200-250 meters, which is apparently the directly opposite of what criteria the video has sighted.>

YouTube Video

My suggestion is that the SRAW be considered a balance between the Eyrx and the PF-98. The SRAW missile is faster than the Eyrx missile, but not as fast as the PF-98. However the SRAW is capable of being guided slightly less than the Eyrx (as the Eyrx is a slow moving TOW style missile, it should theoretically have a superior kind of maneuverability), but obviously has a guidance system unlike the PF-98's roughly dumbfire system.

So basically, the objective here is to give proper characteristics to these Heavy Anti-Tank weapons and give them asymmetrical balancing characteristics within realistic values. I think that this is possible of occurring effectively without upsetting the balance of weapon behavior. Currently I feel the SRAW is in the greatest need of being fixed over the PF-98 and Eyrx (in that order).

(Must have edited this post like 30 times by now... It's all good though.)

Originally Posted by Charity Case

The differences in the HATs aren't really bugs. The PF-98 is meant to be unguided. The SRAW isn't portrayed realistically, so whether it's guided or unguided is kind of a moot point. And the ERYX is wire-guided, in reality and in-game. Sure, there are some inconsistencies, but they don't prevent these weapons from fulfilling their in-game role.

To be honest I feel there is room for improvement. My belief is that they manage to fill their roles but there are things that need to be addressed, particularly in the SRAW. I mean after all, we can't deny that weapon animations had gotten more attention than the functionality of Heavy Anti-Tank weapons. It's way past due for a check up.

Originally Posted by [R-CON]ReaperMAC

Mentioned this back in v.756 testing IIRC, pretty sure they were meant to be like that to prevent 'HAT Sniping' (which is a thing in the past now).

After Chuc's animations were implemented, and new Heavy Anti-Tank values are in place, these are all issues of the pasts. I just was hoping that these kits would get some much needed refinement.