Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: diamondgeezer on January 11, 2004, 01:39:48 am
-
I didn't commit this to Mantis since it's not really a bug. But Reci really needs heat seeker missiles to track targets which have the 'invisible to sensors' flag. I'm hoping it ought to be a very quick code tweak :nod:
-
Its funny how they work for wingman and not the player.
why look at the port and FS1 you can't hit the shivans with MX-50 when they first appear but your wingman can.:)
-
It makes more sense for a heat-seeking missile to track a target regardless of whether they are visible to sensors or not since a heat-seeking missile follows heat anyway so... :yes:
-
What sort of things do you think the sensors would rely on?
"Ah, command, I don't see anything, and there's no radiation sources about, but there's this big thruster flare right in front of me and I don't know what it is... probably nothing, nevermind."
-
FS sensors must be stupid. anything that reflects light can be tracked. the only way to make it invisible to sensors is to make it invisible.
-
Or camouflaged. Given the light input from the stars and so on, you'd have to go by changes in light rather than just its presence, and given how much crap seems to be floating around in space in FS that'd make for a terribly confused sensor.
-
For fuck's sake, do we have to do this every single time? Stryke, I know I neglected to mention that yes, in real life the whole thing is preposterous but I was hoping you lot would show some fucking restraint or have gotten bored after having had the same fucking argument in every other thread.
-
What if the Shivans ran on COLD FUSION?
-
but if there invisable to sensors, then why would the sensors on a missle detect them?
in most casses, I think people would assume that they wouldn't track, as a result we can't simply change this behavor, if a change is to be made it must retain the option of the origonal behavor, and I can't realy think of a good way to do that
-
actually I always shot down Ptahs and Pegasi with Rockeyes :wtf: :nervous:
It works perfectly fine.
-
Two words: Undiscovered Country.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
but if there invisable to sensors, then why would the sensors on a missle detect them?
in most casses, I think people would assume that they wouldn't track, as a result we can't simply change this behavor, if a change is to be made it must retain the option of the origonal behavor, and I can't realy think of a good way to do that
Heat seeking, not aspect seeking. They can still differentiate between hostiles and friendlies via IFF codes (no friendly code= hostile).
Insofar as I can tell, the sensors in Fs ships basically work like sonar or radar, tracking some form of electronic emissions - because there doesn't seem to be any baffling on the thrusters of the GTVa stealth ships to dissipate heat, and also because the shivans couldn't be targeted in FS1 despite thier obvious thruster related heat signature.
Do heatseekers work under primitive sensors?
-
yes, and they do also work against stealth fighters.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Heat seeking, not aspect seeking. They can still differentiate between hostiles and friendlies via IFF codes (no friendly code= hostile).
So they should go after civilian ships too ( TWA boeing anyone? )
-
Civvies have IFF codes too, as do installations. Otherwise they'd show up as 'unknown' or similar. It'd be part of some sort of inbuilt tracking / locator beacon, as in real life.
-
In real life, civilian planes don't have IFF indicators :wtf:
-
Neither do Red Cross buildings.
-
Originally posted by Nico
In real life, civilian planes don't have IFF indicators :wtf:
a) Freespace isn't real life
b) They do still carry ID beacons I belive, so they can be tracked by air traffic control.
-
I mentioned real life coz you did :p "as in real life".
And I doubt heatseeker missiles have IFF discriminators anyway. They target a heat source and, well, that's it.
-
There can be only a few explanations for this, beyond saying "FS isn't realistic" >:P
1 ) Cold fusion (LLivingLarge)
2 ) Gas... Maybe the Shivans can't eat beans or something.
3 ) Ice cold lemonade. It's got to be it. They stole all my lemonade...
~Atal
-
Heat seekers track stealthy ships but not ships flagged invisible to sensors.
Coders, please. Argue about it amongst yourselves all you like, but please, at least look and tell me whether it is feasible.
If we're going to have 'that doesn't happen in real life' 'duh, this is a computer game omfg lolololol' everytime someone posts a code suggestion this place will collapse under sheer weight of retardedness
-
Maybe we can just use prim sensors instead? Or do those also block locking onto friendlies?
-
A stealth ship tries to minimise it's emissions and reflection on whatever band on the spectrum the enemy tries to use.
BTW those eye comments: do you know how freaking advanced thing your brain is? Just because you see smg. doesn't mean you'll notice it. Your brain can interpret that image and realise it's a ship's trail you're seeing - a computer may have trouble doing so.
Space is huge - you can't even find a goddamn planet if you don't know where to look. In spaceoperas it seems quite simple while in real life™ it would take days of observations to calculate a single planet's position.
If subspace interacts with gravity - and we're inclined to thik so- than it becomes a bit easier, but it's still a complex task.
Now imagine how hard it is to spot a single warship smaller than a bigger asteroid?
The only thing I can think of is to listen for distinctive radio/EMwave signals the ship might emmit from its engine or reactor - if both are powered down you're in trouble. Of course the hiding will run low on battery power eventuelly.
You may look for the actual gravity of the craft but that method only works in deep space, and the presence of any planet can screw things up, since you're looking for extremely minute changes caused by a ship with neligable mass in terms of gravity.
(Asimov uses this method in his Empire books - Currents of Space e. a.)
FS radar is probably some advanced radar that scans for engine signatures - since you use fusion engines you inevitably create a lot of waste signals on the spectrum - nuclear reactions tend to do that.
At this point it becomes smg. similar to today submarine warfare - you can even identify a single vessel by it's distinctive sound if you have a previous sample.
So a stealth craft doesn't have to be all that stealthy to begin with - especially in a nebulae.
Of course big active radars can pick you up - this is the reason big ships send you the target data most of the time.
However just like active radars today using one equals shooting at the top of your lungs: "Hey, I'm here buggers!!!"
Of course it has it's own troubles - in a stellar system it takes EMwaves minutes and hours to get to a planet, and it takes a huge ammount of energy to cover an area that big a have an echo.
So EMwaves are good for only short range scans only.
Therefore I think any long range scan requires subspace radar or an equivalent.
If detecting something is this hard when designing a stealth fighter all you have to minimise is EMWave stealthyness - just as with a craft built today. This includes the heat signature.
That's about detecting something.
Locking on is an entierly different thing!
You have to know the precise position and speed of the craft - and let the missile know it too.
In FS they don't use radar guided missiles - maybe since fighters only have passive radars - only optical (aspect seeking) and heat seeking remote weapons.
However there's no such thing an invisible craft!!
Even a stealth fighter/bomber will have a radar/EMwave signature as well as heat signature.
Therefore some weapons will still be effective against such craft at very short range.
Heat Seekers definitly - aspectseekers may have trouble since they are optical guided and even if they mange to lock on to the stealth craft it's very vague shape and unusually low profile can screw them.
You could build special rockets to be used against stealth craft, but these sensors will have to be so sensible that ordinary signatures may burn them out.
With heat you don't have this problem - even the best insulated craft will have a heat signature - although an IR aspect seeker could use that too, let's assume that FS ships emmit heat only with their engines - and give a heat seeker a chance to get it.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Heat seekers track stealthy ships but not ships flagged invisible to sensors.
If this is the case, then it's a bug. Put it in Mantis and we'll fix it.
-
Just promise not to 'fix' it so heatseekers don't even track stelath ships...
Harumph. Anyway, the idea with these fellows I'm shooting at is that they're unlockable. They're not completely invisble, so they do appear faintly on radar, but your targeting computer isn't having any of it. Thus a simple heatseeker can track them.
-
For what it's worth, I like this idea. It gives a reason to use the MX-50s instead of aspect seekers. If it's such a big concern to people, a "no-heat" flag sounds good.
-
Originally posted by LLivingLarge
What if the Shivans ran on COLD FUSION?
*beats head into desk repeatedly until the space bar is jammed from all the blood*
1. Cold fusion was a HOAX! IT WAS A FREAKING HOAX! STOP LIVING 20 YEARS AGO!!!! *breaths* *calms down*
2. Even if Cold Fusion was real, A heat seeking missile could still lock onto a ship using it, because the "cold" simply means that heat isn't used to actvate it. The fusion itself will still create heat.
*passes out from blood loss*
-
I'd like an option that if you fired a Rockeye without a lock, it would track ANY heat source, including friendlies.
-
Originally posted by Nico
I mentioned real life coz you did :p "as in real life".
And I doubt heatseeker missiles have IFF discriminators anyway. They target a heat source and, well, that's it.
According to FS1, the MX-50 (and probably by extension the Rockeye) will only track targets determined to be hostile by its onboard IFF indicator.
UT: No. That would make Rockeyes useless, since their only advantage is that they DON'T require lock, allowing you to spam them all over the place.
-
yeah, and if the ship is invisiablebbeleele to radar the IFF won't be able to identify one way or the other
-
megatsu1 there's no freakin need to identify the IFF!
All the missile has to do is:
FRIENDLY?
....... - from the target
IF IFF = FRIENDLY --> NOT TARGET
ELSE - kill the sucker
BTW YES, you should be able to cover the entire screen with them - however that's perfectly fitting with the missile! A rockeye is the easiest missile to get off your back - it has a low range and it can easly loose the track of its target.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
megatsu1 there's no freakin need to identify the IFF!
All the missile has to do is:
FRIENDLY?
....... - from the target
IF IFF = FRIENDLY --> NOT TARGET
ELSE - kill the sucker
BTW YES, you should be able to cover the entire screen with them - however that's perfectly fitting with the missile! A rockeye is the easiest missile to get off your back - it has a low range and it can easly loose the track of its target.
ummm.... A heatseeker wouldnt read IFFs. It would only read heat signatures in its veiw cone. The seeker system probably reads some other variable to identify freindlys
-
For the record, it's quite possible to aim the AIM-7 using only its heat seeker. You point it at your target and listen for the tone. This lets you fire it without having to lock up the enemy, thus not alerting them to your threat. The downside is you can't be 100% certain it's tracking the right object and if your buddy is right up the enemy plane's tail pipe you risk hitting him...
-
You are surely talking about AIM9...
AIM7 is a semiactive radar tracking piece of crap, capable of alerting even the most primitive RWR.
Though a semiactive tracker would be nice into FS2...
-
Actually, the Sparrow itself wouldn't trigger an RWR. It's the firing plane's radar that does that, since, you know, you need to keep it locked on target in order for the missile to even see it. Unless the targ is jamming, then you can just let it lose on Home on Jam mode (learned that in LOMAC, wewt)
-
To keep things Freespacey while adding a little sense of realism, I think it should happen like this:
Heat-seekers track enemies regardless of whether or not they can be targeted with optional flag "track-friendlies" to allow modders and mission makers the ability to kill friendlies as well - although I do not see a good point behind that but what the heck...
-
Yes, but you need to track it until the impact or the sparrow would simply fly straight ahead...
I learned most of my military knowledge frm Tom Clancy's technical books...
I even made some FS2 weapons basing on them, and they works pretty well...
-
AFAIK most long-to-medium range missiles would tend to have internal radar to track the target. I'm pretty sure AMRAAMs do...although my entire technical expertise is based on the late-but-great Strike Commander
-
Yep, all fire and forget Radar missiles have an internal radar...
AMRAAMs were the second ones to use that tech...
Still, i'd rather use the great AIM-54C Phoenix... Range:184km@mach4
-
Ok, how about allow Rockeye's to hit friendlies? After all, if they're heat-seeking, and you spam a bunch off, there should be a chance that they'd go for other targets, not just the one you're locked onto.
-
meh...
R-37
range over 350 km
speed 4 mach
used as primary missile for Mig-31M
semi-active/active...
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Ok, how about allow Rockeye's to hit friendlies? After all, if they're heat-seeking, and you spam a bunch off, there should be a chance that they'd go for other targets, not just the one you're locked onto.
NO NO NO!
Besides, they don't always go after your current target. They will go after the nearest hostile ship.
-
Right. About them Semi-Active missiles i had planned. Thats going after 3.6 (as with everything else). Maybe a better term would be laser guided. I don't see the GTVA using 1940s technology in 2360 and beyond. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,17217.0.html)
i meant to do that.
-
Laser guided is about 5 years younger than semiactive tracking :-)
You'd better call them semi-active tracking missile than referring to existing technologies, since even the latest ones have been invented in the 70s...
It would be cool especially for capships, so that if you destroy the sensor subsystem or jam it with an awacs the missiles wouldn't be able to track anything...
It would be hard to balance such a kind of missile, but if well done it would be a really useful feature...
-
Actually SARH missiles are 40's technology. I've edited the original post to reflect this.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html
Semi-active still sounds better. But some purists will ***** and complain.
-
Well, let the purists complain and find a better name if they can...
BTW, if you want to make the feature interesting require that the target must remain in the fighter's FOV, but as balancing effect the missile will never lose the tracking as long as it's guided...
Kinda useful against 3 axis Shivans and head on attacks.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
You are surely talking about AIM9...
Course I am. Why? What did I say? Oh. Um... *runs*
-
I have found the cause.
Weapons.cpp, lines 2417-2420...
// AL 2-17-98: If ship is immune to sensors, can't home on it (Sandeep says so)!
if ( Ships[objp->instance].flags & SF_HIDDEN_FROM_SENSORS ) {
continue;
}So, unfortunately, it looks like I can't help you, because Sandeep said so. Looks like I'll just have to make stealth invisible to heatseekers too.
-
so your going to have to call him up and get him to aprove it
-
Are we forced to stick with what [V] programmers said even if it may result in a less playable game?
Let's make it optional and everyone will be happy IMHO.
-
...Who the hell is sandeep, and why do we care what he says? He was probably just a lazy bugger...
Not that I know the slightest about coding... I only took a "principles of coding" class, and it bored the hell out of me. (I was surfing these forums while she spoke...)
-
Sandeep Shekar (probly misspelled that, but what else is new) was one of the big V gods, he is a major high level planner and programmer.
and we can't make every line of code in the game optional it simply isn't practical
-
Well, if we can build a new game setting interface most things will become more pratical...
A rework on RT Launcher will do IMHO
-
I was being facetious. :) There are several possibilities here...
1) Sandeep truly intended for heat-seekers not to home in on hidden ships. But this seems counterintuitive.
2) Sandeep might have said "Missiles shouldn't home in on hidden ships", meaning aspect seekers (since they can't lock), and it was misapplied to heat-seekers too.
3) This was during FS1 development, not FS2, so they didn't need to wonder about stealth. Since they didn't apply it to stealth, maybe they forgot, or maybe they intended that heat-seekers should home in on stealth. And I assume stealth is more powerful than hidden sensors (it seems obvious).
4) During the SOC mission where you look for Snipes, they specifically advise you to take heat-seekers to deal with sporadic targeting.
If there's a consensus that this should be changed, I'll change it. It just needs to be commented out.
-
how about a weapons flag?
-
Well see here's the thing - Reci needs it. There are certain... :nervous:... hostiles... :nervous:... that are largely impossible to kill with lasers when they're flagged invisible. Without heatseekers the player has very little offensive capability...
I was going to suggest a weapons flag but that involves more than a simple commenting-out and the code freeze tends to put a crimp on that kind of thing...
-
Thank you for spoiling part of the player's initial encounters with the Nightmares.:doubt:
-
Apologies to SCP team, I'm cussing rather a lot in your forum lately...
Don't apologies usually come after the infraction?
-------------------------------------------
Diamondgeezer enjoys eating spinach.
-------------------------------------------
Um, what the hell is going on with this post?
Editing. And I'm glad to see you restarted your custom signatures. :p
-
tis OK. we like working with you. I do at least.
-
Well... cheers for that. Still a bit confused about my previous post, mind