Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

AH-99 stealth capabilities
Acknowledged, WishlistPublic

Description

AH-99 has no advantages over Mi-48, witch is not logic.
Here is why - RAH-66 was designed with less armor than KA-52(for example), that means you can't just give them the same class. Not just because it is recon-assistant aircraft, but because of it's design. The result that was achieved by development team after decision to use significantly less armor was remarkable. Why ? RAH-66 Comanche helicopter has radar reflection TWO times less than AGM Hellfire. It is unfairly that in Arma 3, its copy - AH-99 has less armor than Mi-48 and can be detected by any radar. The idea mainly that there is no way engineers would give it less armor if the helicopter has no stealth capabilities. They also did't use wings for extra load to reach this goal. But in Arma, AH-99 has no advantages, and easily loses face to face with Mi-48 and also can't be used for recon-assistance because of radar detection.

It also has incredibly low maneuverability and survivability regardless Mi-48 witch can easily fly almost half of Altis without both engines and one rotor from 1000 m alt (with AFM of course)

My suggestion is to make AH-99 invisible for enemy radars as aircraft unit, but allow enemy radar to detect it as a missile and not always. Randomly and rare.

Details

Legacy ID
2459113406
Severity
None
Resolution
Open
Reproducibility
N/A
Category
Feature Request

Event Timeline

Bohemia set Category to Feature Request.Jan 31 2016, 7:13 PM
Bohemia set Reproducibility to N/A.
Bohemia set Severity to None.
Bohemia set Resolution to Open.
Bohemia set Legacy ID to 2459113406.May 8 2016, 1:37 PM

How about something more universal? How about a config value that determines the "stealthiness"of a vehicle(for both Ground and air). The value will determine at what range a vehicle gets visible on the radar(should depend on radar and vehicle). That would provide modders to do some interesting futuristic stuff. Also that would allow proper B2 or Nighthawk mods.

Bohemia added a subscriber: Bohemia.May 8 2016, 1:37 PM

Good idea.
I've tried the simplest way.
So, value for every vehicle is the right way I think.
For radar systems ranges are important when they deal with small objects. So, if possible, the code should contain some range dependencies.

Sorry, not understood in the right way first time I think.

Your idea is to give vehicles value witch determines the range of detection by enemy radar (if I'm right)

I'm not sure if it's suitable enough for combat. Is it ?
In my vision the value is amount of reflection and yea, the problem that radars should have the value of power. That means a new entire system, witch is more realistic of course.

To remove the issue with AH-99 body quickly and simply, just give it missile type and add a bit random.

Give a Blackfoot a Missle Txpe is almost impossible.
What i meant is first value is some kind of radar signature value or how detectable a vehicle is. Second value is how good is the Radar of the vehicle.
The idea would be that the detection range would be calculated by both values.
For example Blackfoot has a signature of 25% (its a hypothetic value) and a Tigris has a detector with 100% (AA should have the best detectors). The max range is about 5km currently. So at all the tange is 25%*100%=25% its about 1.25km.
Same with a littlebird. Its has for example a detector with 50% so the range would be 0.625km so mostly direct view.
For balancing i would like to see all maximum radar ranges to be made bigger so big planes are visible further away and stealth vehicles are visible at about 2 to 4 km. Btw no random value needed and also that funtion could be client side and in a different thread. It would be like the main thread gives all the radar values the second thread creates a sheme for the radar and gives it back to the main thread. Hope any devs can understand what i mean.

I believe that you can easily change a type of the unit for radars.
Probably your idea is good and easy to implement.
If it won't affect performance (I'm not developer, but I guess it won't) they can use formula but decrease reflection value of real vehicles in proportion to decreased radar distances, that was't actually decreased, because they are set to the same value on every vehicle. It can be changed, and it will provide ability to make vehicles stealthy and not stealthy (that means invisible C-17) but the game will be more realistic. I also agree that distances should be increased witch not just realistic but also useful in Arma itself (because it realistic, in reality you don't use useless things usually)

The type of a asset in Arma has far more Values than just the radar signature. For example: The Blackfoot is a Vehicle so it has vehicle soecific variables (what should be loaded or what ever) than its a helicopter soadditionally the afm can be configured and finally its a Blackfoot model that means the 3d object is soecified. The radar marker is defined in the class Vehicles.
A dagr is a ammo class (so dmg values etc) its a missile class so it flights and its a missile cause it can steer (rockets are missiles with maneuvarability of 0). The radar signature is defined in the missile class.
Its a very good style (mostly some things are a little bit weird but thats a different story) of sorting a config so the idea of changing the markers yes it is possible but a very bad style of config.

I would say change the ticket to the method i wrote and leave it like that it maybe takes time and patience but its a good method. The problem i think will be the overall radar range because of performance issues. So as most of the performance issues are dealt with maybe the make the radar distance not 5km but infinite. Who knows?

The config value are almost all really simplified. So the idea with percentage is good. Like i said the biggest problem is the radar range. The system i explained is more like a filter. So still the radar needs to see all vehicles that it would see now just with 10x more range.

You guys make me crazy with you Note deleting XD!

Sorry, just decided to create a new ticket.
Thank you for your help!
Here it is http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=27689