Modern Warfare Mod 3 brings World in Conflict from the Cold War into the Modern Age. It also ups the ante on realism and authenticity in every role – Infantry, Armor, Support and Air, while trying our best to keep everything relatively balanced for fun and interesting gameplay.

Forum Thread
by member
  Posts  
Cold launch (Mods : WIC: Modern Warfare Mod 4 : Forum : Suggestions : Cold launch) Locked
Thread Options
Dec 14 2012, 8:58am Anchor

I think the cold launch of missiles used by RUSSIANS should be implemented again. They look very cool and very realistic. Like Tor's missile cold launch. but now in 3.5 it's not using cold launch

blahdy
blahdy Data-Linked AA-12
Dec 14 2012, 2:11pm Anchor
tofuboi wrote:I think the cold launch of missiles used by RUSSIANS should be implemented again. They look very cool and very realistic. Like Tor's missile cold launch. but now in 3.5 it's not using cold launch

S-300 uses cold launch.

Tor missile will be reviewed later on (cold launch is very complicated to code, physics-wise).

Dec 15 2012, 9:32am Anchor

I think you've accomplished tor's cold launch 2 years ago. This was just perfect! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_vgfYcjHj8. And the S300 cold launch in early version were pretty cool too! Looks very goood

blahdy
blahdy Data-Linked AA-12
Dec 17 2012, 10:45pm Anchor

Yea, the old version was actually just an animation (time consuming process).

The new version uses real physics to accomplish cold launch, so it needs to be coded in software to accomplish properly, which I haven't had the time to do so...yet.

Dec 17 2012, 11:15pm Anchor

Yes! I really admire your work on cold launch its brilliant! I noticed something about the pantsir in versions 3.2 and 3.5 sometimes it is not using it's autocannon when engaging PGM's and aircraft at close range, In 3.5 sometimes  it just shoots like 2 -4 bullets in burst, is it a bug or you were just adjusting it's code for shooting all kinds of rockets and pgms in the future?

Edited by: tofuboi

blahdy
blahdy Data-Linked AA-12
Dec 19 2012, 12:33pm Anchor

There is a bug with target acquisition loop on Pantsir AA gun.  It will be looked into soon :)

Dec 19 2012, 1:25pm Anchor

Yeah! That's what i thought. And on patriot sams., It's range is affected when the radar of patriot is located away from battlefield, but when you only activated the defensive ability and then move the radar closer to the battlefield, the SAMS range will Increase unlike the s300 systems. The patriot should have a separate Radar like the s300. Like a movable one

blahdy
blahdy Data-Linked AA-12
Dec 19 2012, 6:26pm Anchor

That also affects S-300 as well.  If you move radars closer to battle, then it will extend the maximum range of either systems.

The kinematics range of both S-300 48N6 and Patriot PAC-2 missiles extend much farther than their maximum range.  Radars are programmed to not launch at the missile's actual maximum range -- instead, it's programmed to launch when the target comes well inside the missile's max range, so that there is higher probability of kill.

Since the point of target positional tracking is the radar itself, placing the radar closer to the frontline forces it to commit SAMs against targets much sooner, and at extended ranges than before.

Dec 19 2012, 9:25pm Anchor

Wow! I thought it was just a bug about patriot sam's small range when i'm using it due to me not moving the radar closer to battle. By the way SPLENDID work on HEAVY ARTILLERY!! and it can now be engaged by Phalanx! What unit would replace the phalanx because it is not mobile unlike pantsir or tor in terms of shooting down PGMS and Rocket arty? Does the Avenger shoot down PGMS using it's cannon? I saw it engaging Infantry units using its cannon. The AI when in hardmode and on map Riviera does not use TBMS but when i switch to map SILO the ai are using them. What  factor affects the ai from using TBM?

blahdy
blahdy Data-Linked AA-12
Dec 20 2012, 1:19pm Anchor

Phalanx won't be replaced for both realistic and balance reasons.  It may be added with additional systems in the future.  Avenger cannot engage artillery nor PGMs, it's purely anti-aircraft at short ranges.

Regarding TBMs, there is a minimum range requirement.  Riviera is a small map, so AI can't use it very well.  Also, there is a bug with AI that causes it to not launch TBM when it needs to launch.  Next version of the mod will address this bug (and TBMs fly higher in the next version).

Dec 26 2012, 1:59pm Anchor

I've played 3.5 for more than 2 weeks now. Russia's anti missile capability is not good enough compared to CIWS phalanx. Tor's reaction to most anti radiation missile is slow, unlike CIWS it can shoot down ARM, and PGMS with ease. Tor is not much capable of shooting missiles down unlike ciws because that is Pantsir's job but pantsirs in 3.5 do not engaged pgms and arm missiles. Too bad Russia's anti missile capability is not balanced enough compared to USA's CIWS. And what's with the big plane on russia? What does it do? i can see it shoots down a tomahawk-like projectile but does nothing.

Dec 27 2012, 5:26am Anchor

True that.
I've tested both CIWS and Tor M1 versus AH-64E, Tor M1 have longer range but easier to evade, and CIWS have shorter range but high probability of kill the heli.
And seems CIWS are more advantageful rather than Tor M1, because, even Tor M1 have longer range, but the missile are too slow to launch.
And
, tofuboi's right, Tor M1 reaction to missiles are slow.

Tested Tor and CIWS by launching 6 SALH Hellfire ( AH-64E, Charlie ), 3 each wave, CIWS can intercept it easily at all, and Tor M1, yeah successful, but the Tor scrapped by the 2nd missile from the second wave.

Dec 27 2012, 11:14am Anchor

You are right dhannemon13, I think pantsir has the ability to intercept missiles and other PGMs just like CIWS do. Pantsir has 30mm autocannons and can fire just like ciws, but now is buggy, sometimes it shoots down missiles sometimes not :(

blahdy
blahdy Data-Linked AA-12
Dec 27 2012, 10:41pm Anchor

Only thing I can say is that Tor code needs a serious review.  It was hurriedly modified to employ FLINT missile system (hell you can see that cold-launch sequence is very crudely done).

Aside from reaction time issues, Tor also has guidance problems in the present game implementation.  It currently only uses proportional navigation (PN) for homing route.  While PN is highly effective at leading targets, it's pretty bad in setting up perfectly aligned collision-lead intercept paths for missile defense.  For example, Patriot in game doesn't use PN guidance; it uses combination of sophisticated mid-course command guidance and predictive guidance (PG) in the end-game stage; these two guidance methods are very efficient in putting the interceptor in front of a target missile's flight path at the right time.

In real life, Tor uses CLOS guidance, which performs worse in several cases, but it has the benefit of other algorithms that can be processed by the ground vehicle to improve accuracy.

I'm reviewing some options to improve Tor in game, including potentially writing a new CLOS guidance module to make it more realistically simulated to its real-life counterpart, while improving performance.  But there are other projects taking up my time at the moment, so it's a bit lower priority right now :-)

Reply to Thread
click to sign in and post

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.