noob education needed here... what can the SA-342M do?

Just to add to the list, stealth needs to come into it. You simply must be able to sneak up and ambush a tank or enemy vehicle, especially while your are flying these light helicopters.(and other AT helicopters).

 

The enemy tank should act like it doesn't know you are there, until you have revealed enough of your helicopter for long enough. Especially while the tank is moving (perhaps a higher chance of being spotted if the commander is observing with binoculars).

 

You should be able to get very close with the tank ignoring you, as long as most of your aircraft is behind terrain or cover.

 

The AI should consider something along the lines of:

1. Direct Line of Sight

 

2. Distance between enemy and player helicopter (perhaps infantry could "hear" you if close enough, but not moving tank unless very very close).

 

3. How much of helicopter can be seen vs how much is in cover. So you can peak/recce safely if not too close.

 

4. Lighting/Shadow and weather conditions. (less light and visibility, the harder you are to see, stay in the shadows of buildings and mountains if you can).

 

5. Background contrasting. (if there is nothing but sky behind you, then you are easier to see, if there is a mountain/building/trees behind you then you blend in more).

 

6.Distance between you and your background. (if the mountain behind you is further, than you blend in less).

 

If all of those steps above succeed, only then should the enemy tank react in a combat manner. And that is if the tank is currently "looking" for targets. Because, perhaps the crew are chatting, or looking for mines, checking maps etc etc.

 

Once spotted:

7. Reaction time, depending on difficulty setting, and perhaps even enemy unit veterancy.

 

8. Aim/Accuracy should depend on difficulty setting, and perhaps enemy unit veterancy.

 

9. Slightly randomised values for all above, to keep things feeling organic. Perhaps the crew is having a bad day, or maybe they are very alert.

 

Then when you hide, and move to another location, the AI would have to go through these steps again, to spot you. The only difference would be that it would search more often, since it knows you must be somewhere. And they would also know what they are looking for, so it would be slightly easier to spot you.

 

Without something like that, these modules will be just a matter of hover near the max range of the missile and firing.

Exactly. The AI needs lots of design changes to make them more toward realistic. And it would change the CA module benefits as well when we can ambush others without firing all the time from Max possible ranges.

It would make CAS pilots works nicer as after first impact every vehicle in the column isn't pulling over, but carpet bombing has benefits or using rocketruns.

And to make our helicopters pilots works harder, AI should seek cover autonomy manner instead sit in open and wait when the last missile is fired at it.

There are many things that were not graphics related but just game logic ones that benefits all sim fans by multiplying realism and difficult by multiple factors.

And hitboxes for trees is big factor in that. Now we have a new map like NTRE but it doesn't have a trees like a Black Sea has. And if others comes as well with me terrains that doesn't offer that every tree is with hitboxes, how will AI know what is behind and front of the helicopter or it and the threat etc that can give the cover?

I will get these new modules like Gazelle, but they are totally boring to fly after a while as you just play that same old "who has longer Max range" game. And I bet every A-10C sim fan would wish same if they would know that what they have now is just not a combat simulation as it is way easier to them fly their aircrafts now.

I do not see these God like AI that everyone talks about.

Attached is a simple test mission.

10 T-55 tanks, lowest skill level. All vehicles in individual groups, so they don't share information.

5 seconds after mission start, a hovering UH-1 spawns 2000m behind the tanks (simulating a pop-up maneuver).

1 second after spawn, two tanks are turning their turrets to engage.

2 second after spawn, 4 tanks are turning their turrets to engage.

3 seconds after spawn, all 10 tanks are turning their turrets to engage.

Under these circumstances, employing the Gazelle or BO-105 in their original mission will be next to impossible.

"who has longer Max range" game

That hits the nail on the head for DCS and this killed flying the Ka-50 for me.

The AI should consider something along the lines of:

1. Direct Line of Sight

 

2. Distance between enemy and player helicopter (perhaps infantry could "hear" you if close enough, but not moving tank unless very very close).

 

3. How much of helicopter can be seen vs how much is in cover. So you can peak/recce safely if not too close.

 

4. Lighting/Shadow and weather conditions. (less light and visibility, the harder you are to see, stay in the shadows of buildings and mountains if you can).

 

5. Background contrasting. (if there is nothing but sky behind you, then you are easier to see, if there is a mountain/building/trees behind you then you blend in more).

 

6.Distance between you and your background. (if the mountain behind you is further, than you blend in less).

 

If all of those steps above succeed, only then should the enemy tank react in a combat manner. And that is if the tank is currently "looking" for targets. Because, perhaps the crew are chatting, or looking for mines, checking maps etc etc.

 

Once spotted:

7. Reaction time, depending on difficulty setting, and perhaps even enemy unit veterancy.

 

8. Aim/Accuracy should depend on difficulty setting, and perhaps enemy unit veterancy.

 

9. Slightly randomised values for all above, to keep things feeling organic. Perhaps the crew is having a bad day, or maybe they are very alert.

 

Good list. Here are some more:

Instead of range: Target angular size. Big close targets are easier to spot than small distant targets. Helicopters seen from the front are smaller than seen from the side.

Target bearing rate. Moving targets are easier to spot than stationary targets.

The RAF did an exercise in Wales some years back when the Tornado F3's were trying to down helicopters. I recall it was before we ended up in IFOR. Anyway the Helo guys could play at Hinds and they could claim a Jet if they had the jet in a sighting area for x number of seconds. The results were a wake up call for the fighters as they found it hard to find the helo's by which time the helo had stopped and was turning while hovering, no doubt with full sound effects in the helo cockpit, while the fighter roared by. Remember we had to identify each target to avoid Blue on Blue. An article did appear in on of the magazines about it. I understand the upshot was, If your sure it's an enemy, give it one go, if not successful, depart elsewhere and let someone else have a go at it. DO NOT go back to have another go.

So now we have the Kamov, in the ravines and drainage ditches, much loved by Jag's and Bucc's, Could be fun.

I have a friend that has a few Mig-29s marks painted in his kamov. Then with CLTD script we kill F-15 with Mi-8. Travel to their area, when we see one, land and pop manpad squad. :P Mistral verison of the gazelle gonna be a great thing. :P

Just to add to the list,

stealth needs to come into it. You simply must be able to sneak up and ambush a tank or enemy vehicle, especially while your are flying these light helicopters.(and other AT helicopters).

 

The enemy tank should act like it doesn't know you are there, until you have revealed enough of your helicopter for long enough. Especially while the tank is moving (perhaps a higher chance of being spotted if the commander is observing with binoculars).

 

You should be able to get very close with the tank ignoring you, as long as most of your aircraft is behind terrain or cover.

 

The AI should consider something along the lines of:

1. Direct Line of Sight

 

2. Distance between enemy and player helicopter (perhaps infantry could "hear" you if close enough, but not moving tank unless very very close).

 

3. How much of helicopter can be seen vs how much is in cover. So you can peak/recce safely if not too close.

 

4. Lighting/Shadow and weather conditions. (less light and visibility, the harder you are to see, stay in the shadows of buildings and mountains if you can).

 

5. Background contrasting. (if there is nothing but sky behind you, then you are easier to see, if there is a mountain/building/trees behind you then you blend in more).

 

6.Distance between you and your background. (if the mountain behind you is further, than you blend in less).

 

If all of those steps above succeed, only then should the enemy tank react in a combat manner. And that is if the tank is currently "looking" for targets. Because, perhaps the crew are chatting, or looking for mines, checking maps etc etc.

 

Once spotted:

7. Reaction time, depending on difficulty setting, and perhaps even enemy unit veterancy.

 

8. Aim/Accuracy should depend on difficulty setting, and perhaps enemy unit veterancy.

 

9. Slightly randomised values for all above, to keep things feeling organic. Perhaps the crew is having a bad day, or maybe they are very alert.

 

Then when you hide, and move to another location, the AI would have to go through these steps again, to spot you. The only difference would be that it would search more often, since it knows you must be somewhere. And they would also know what they are looking for, so it would be slightly easier to spot you.

 

Without something like that, these modules will be just a matter of hover near the max range of the missile and firing.

I agree with all the bolded points, however, I also have zero expectation of any of that being implemented in the foreseeable future. We must play the game as it is offered and that mostly means max range games for ground attack. With that said, the missiles fired by the T-72/80/90's can't track moving targets well. I've used real world Mi-24 attack methods with the Ka-50 in game and they work pretty well so long as you stay out of MG range. The Gazelle will be forced to do the same against those types of targets as it lacks the range to snipe.

Overall, as I stated earlier, this little chopper will be more enjoyable in lower threat environments. You have to keep in mind that the Gazelle is a legacy aircraft. They stopped making them 20 years ago and both the aircraft and its weapons date from the 1970's. The SA-342 is the same vintage as the MiG-21Bis and upcoming F-5E. Playing with units of that period is where it will be happiest. I do not think going up against T-90's, BMP-3's, M1A2's and Tors is going to be an enjoyable experience. Those are targets for the Gazelle's replacements.

Good list. Here are some more:

 

Instead of range: Target angular size. Big close targets are easier to spot than small distant targets. Helicopters seen from the front are smaller than seen from the side.

 

Target bearing rate. Moving targets are easier to spot than stationary targets.

And that so that target moving around the ground vehicle is easier to spot than target that is coming toward or going away, or target that is flying parallel to ground vehicle direction is as well mode difficult to spot (you know the airplane parallax error where looking from a moving car a big airline aircraft looks like stationary in the sky when they are taking off/landing.)

I agree with all the bolded points, however, I also have zero expectation of any of that being implemented in the foreseeable future. We must play the game as it is offered and that mostly means max range games for ground attack. With that said, the missiles fired by the T-72/80/90's can't track moving targets well. I've used real world Mi-24 attack methods with the Ka-50 in game and they work pretty well so long as you stay out of MG range. The Gazelle will be forced to do the same against those types of targets as it lacks the range to snipe.

 

Overall, as I stated earlier, this little chopper will be more enjoyable in lower threat environments. You have to keep in mind that the Gazelle is a legacy aircraft. They stopped making them 20 years ago and both the aircraft and its weapons date from the 1970's. The SA-342 is the same vintage as the MiG-21Bis and upcoming F-5E. Playing with units of that period is where it will be happiest. I do not think going up against T-90's, BMP-3's, M1A2's and Tors is going to be an enjoyable experience. Those are targets for the Gazelle's replacements.

I have no idea can HOT3 be fired from a moving helicopter because it is a wireguided? As Kokon/Ataka from Mi-24 was possible and just limited maneuvera to the 60° degree from target direction.

It is just great to get Gazelle but then the simulation side on DCS puts some of it down :'-(

Like I was dreaming how that low flying and pop+up attacks would be so nice to do but then again remember the max range "play" limiting it against unarmed vehicles was let down.

I agree with all the bolded points, however, I also have zero expectation of any of that being implemented in the foreseeable future. We must play the game as it is offered and that mostly means max range games for ground attack. With that said, the missiles fired by the T-72/80/90's can't track moving targets well. I've used real world Mi-24 attack methods with the Ka-50 in game and they work pretty well so long as you stay out of MG range. The Gazelle will be forced to do the same against those types of targets as it lacks the range to snipe.

 

Overall, as I stated earlier, this little chopper will be more enjoyable in lower threat environments. You have to keep in mind that the Gazelle is a legacy aircraft. They stopped making them 20 years ago and both the aircraft and its weapons date from the 1970's. The SA-342 is the same vintage as the MiG-21Bis and upcoming F-5E. Playing with units of that period is where it will be happiest. I do not think going up against T-90's, BMP-3's, M1A2's and Tors is going to be an enjoyable experience. Those are targets for the Gazelle's replacements.

I agree that it makes good sense to pair up the gazelle with it's real life targets.

I just really hope that Polychop can encourage ED to make some AI changes to make it possible to play a sneak and surprise game with these choppers. It doesn't have to be simulated to crazy levels, just enough to feel like you are able to fly the mission as intended.

Hi guys,

Well it was back in late 2015 when I tested a general training mission with Poly_B, but later on I tested the GAZELLE in the exact same mission.

It is tricky but not impossibile to fight with her against moving tanks.

As I see it from my point of view, the engagement would always start at max ranges in real life. For me as commander I would like to be at a waiting position and let the tanks close into range. I can use my laser distance finder to measure the targets all the way to max distance and make the first shot.

As soon I have made the first shot I try to make a move to a different spot and fall behind my other 3 buddies to ensure the next line of fire, as my buddies will do the same. This should be a good tactic and also applies to basic infantry tactics we learned in the german navy.

I have not tried to attack targets in a move cause you would have to fly and stear the missiles at the same time. In a dual cockpit this might be a total different ballgame, but we all have to wait for such upgrades at the moment.

I for myself recommend haveing 2 GAZELLES working as pair minimum against any target oout there, cause this way you can move tactical against any armour.

cheers sven

Do you have any RL tactics documentation borchi?

Would it really be possible to use HOT while on the move? I would think, the risk that the wire would be teared, were too high?

And, somewhat related, iirc in "APACHE" or was it "HELLFIRE" where Ed Macy described an incident where he got his Gazelle entangled badly in such wires (from previous exercises) and almost crashed.

So, I would think, either the wire might snap and the HOT goes dumb, and/or you risk to get the wire into all kinds of moving parts of your helo.

(and if I am right, will these effects - to some extend - be modelled? :o)

I saw a documentary a while back where they interviewed a Gazelle pilot from the 1991 Gulf War. He was fighting a tank (T-55 I think) and was trying to shoot him on the move but had trouble hitting him, so the final shot was done while hovering, which finally found its mark (he'd fired 2-3 missiles on the move first). I wasn't able to dig up the documentary but it is on youtube somewhere (unless deleted of course).

As for how the wire is kept out of the way, I assume it's on a spring loaded spool. Given that the missile is substantially faster than the chopper, the chopper moving forwards shouldn't be an issue. Minor course changes should also be ok from the wire's standpoint (tracking maybe different). Obviously you can't really turn the chopper as that would cause the wire to snag on something, so maneuvering is very limited. I think a bit of side slipping, changes in altitude and pitch up/down would generally be ok so long as you were mindful of the rotor blades.

Hi guys,

Well it was back in late 2015 when I tested a general training mission with Poly_B, but later on I tested the GAZELLE in the exact same mission.

It is tricky but not impossibile to fight with her against moving tanks.

As I see it from my point of view, the engagement would always start at max ranges in real life. For me as commander I would like to be at a waiting position and let the tanks close into range. I can use my laser distance finder to measure the targets all the way to max distance and make the first shot.

As soon I have made the first shot I try to make a move to a different spot and fall behind my other 3 buddies to ensure the next line of fire, as my buddies will do the same. This should be a good tactic and also applies to basic infantry tactics we learned in the german navy.

 

I have not tried to attack targets in a move cause you would have to fly and stear the missiles at the same time. In a dual cockpit this might be a total different ballgame, but we all have to wait for such upgrades at the moment.

I for myself recommend haveing 2 GAZELLES working as pair minimum against any target oout there, cause this way you can move tactical against any armour.

 

cheers sven

Have you also already collected experience with the Gazelle against targets accompanied by MANPADS? Currently MANPADS in DCS are also of the insta-reacting nature (as described here). As we know, in Soviet mechanized rifle units, SA-7/14/16 were organized 3 teams per company (10 BMP/BTR), so would have been an ever present sight for Gazelle pilots.

Well infantry is not the kind of target for a HOT3.

No matter if manpad or not. Infantry is fought by infantry that uses ambushes. At least that is the doctrine we learned and would have fought the big warshaw army. Guerillia tactics donw by a complete army, well imagine what confusion would have been caused.

About real tactics, well we have info from Real Gazelle Pilots and how they implement thier tactics but we were asked not to share names and specifics.

So sorry GG Tharos, even if we would have such books we are not allowed to pass that stuff forward.

What we can say though is, that most of the HOT3 would be shot hovering at a certain postition and move and fall back again.

Imagine destroying one tank of a platoon, maybe the commanding tank. This would slow down the whole platoon and they would reorganise with the other 3 left tanks.

Think of this chickenhut like a sniper who kills first the corpsman of a infantry unit and next the officer. That slows down the momentum of that particular unit by hours, not minutes, we talk about hours.

That is the same tactic with the little scouts like BO105 and GAZELLE.

They ould pin down tankunits one by one and slow down the momentum of the huge army. Maybe that hard that the whole army gets to an hold. No that is where you want to have established air suoperiority and get the tank plinkers into the game like the a10a/c and others.

This is how WW3 would have rolled in Germany.

We were thought well in our military how this tactical stuff would have rolled. Well at least I can speak for my unit, not for all units in our army.

Basic tactics for infrantry also work for helos in certain ways ;-)

Well infantry is not the kind of target for a HOT3.

No matter if manpad or not. Infantry is fought by infantry that uses ambushes. At least that is the doctrine we learned and would have fought the big warshaw army. Guerillia tactics donw by a complete army, well imagine what confusion would have been caused.

I was not really refering to fighting infantry, but rather the fact that armor, which is the target of the Gazelle, would almost always have been accompanied by MANPADS teams. Soviet air defense platoons had their own BMP/BTR to ride along (AD team of two man with 3 SAM launchers, 3 teams with a dedicated vehicle, 3 vehicle per MR battalion or attached as one vehicle per MR company. This was the standard organization). And as the Warsaw Pact was always fighting as combined arms, mechanized rifle troops would be with tanks and vice versa.

I was not really refering to fighting infantry, but rather the fact that armor, which is the target of the Gazelle, would almost always have been accompanied by MANPADS teams. Soviet air defense platoons had their own BMP/BTR to ride along (AD team of two man with 3 SAM launchers, 3 teams with a dedicated vehicle, 3 vehicle per MR battalion or attached as one vehicle per MR company. This was the standard organization). And as the Warsaw Pact was always fighting as combined arms, mechanized rifle troops would be with tanks and vice versa.

In reality by minimizing the time you're exposed.

You have seen those videos here how low i.e. the BO flies - below tree top level. And when they aquired a target with their top mounted sighting unit, keeping most of the helo still below the trees, they pop up, fire and then go down again while guiding the missile - still only exposing the rotor and the sighting unit.

How this will turn out in DCS ... well .... we will see, I guess.

@MBot

Well the mechanised troops of any army work the same way. It is for the german army of the cold war time the same. Both sides were evenly matched and both used similar tactics. Everybody knew, an invasion would be worth nothing as they new from thier own tactics the weak links of it, what the opponent new too. Maybe that is one reason why we never faced the WW3.

About the MANPADs, well, you have to see the targets to fight them. If you get hits on a few tanks from different postions in a few seconds, you have to stop to get the MANPADs out of the vehicle. Which makes you vounurable. The helos dug down and hide while thier missile fly and as soon they are spotted it is too late. Plus you have many helos and most of the time more then 1 squad of 4 operating agains a battilion.

For real warfare the intel is most vital, cause you have to plan the attack on the invading armys to stop thier momentum. Enviroment also helps to plan. critical bridges for example that need to be crossed can be blown up and you have the army stopped for awhile and intel can do its job. You get the info where they are in which structure and start to plan you moved. Wargames a re a bit like chess, just with a diffrent outcome of casualties, cause chess is not payed with blood.

You can plan you mission with manpads too. Make the unit stop when one of the vehicles is destroyed and may get the MANPADs deployed. Then you see they will move slow afterwords, or should move slow, if they will move at all. Have not planned any mission for awhile.

The slower a unit mves the easier it will be to fight the unit.

Mechanised troops they are slowed down in thier momentum by getting blown up from helicoters which also reduces the fighting and hitting capabilities. In warfare it is all about slowing the momentum of the opponent to plan and start the counterattack.

This is what I sometimes missed in the mssion I played, plus I always missed wreckages of fought battles in a premission that was played before in a campagne.

I once made a mission for a buddy of mine and added alotof wreckages from a prior battle, where they would have been aproximately. He came back with the note that he was super confused and it was hard to make out active standing units and sometimes moving units too.

That are also factors that add to the equations. So combat is anything then easy and clean like in a simulation.

I could wirte books about this topic, what a real combat scenario should look like.

cheers

Sven

I completely agree with what you write Sven, and all these tactics are exactly what I would like to apply in DCS. The hide-and-seek game of the lightly armored helicopters have always fascinated me, as it is, as you write, very similar to basic infantry tactics. Unfortnately I have big concerns if these things are applicable in DCS due to the rather simplistic ground AI (especially the very basic detection model and the absence of any suppression model). What we will see in DCS is that within 3 seconds of unmasking your Gazelle/BO-105 from cover, every deployed Igla MANPADS in range will shoot at you, every BMP in range will shoot at you etc. DCS does not know the effects of surprise and ambush, and these are essential in combat.

My wish as a customer to Polychop is, that you do not only concentrate on building excellent isolated aircraft but also emphasis on the overall (combat) environment that your aircraft operates in. As such I hope that you do what is in your power to improve the combat environment, either by your own solutions, or through Eagle Dynamics.

In reality by minimizing the time you're exposed.

 

You have seen those videos here how low i.e. the BO flies - below tree top level. And when they aquired a target with their top mounted sighting unit, keeping most of the helo still below the trees, they pop up, fire and then go down again while guiding the missile - still only exposing the rotor and the sighting unit.

Exactly. On top of that you have to keep in mind, that MANPADS won't be in the very first line of attack. They will travel right behind. So if you have enemy armor comming at you, you will hide behind trees, pop up to take the shot and get out of there before the MANPADs will be in position and ready to fire.

How this will turn out in DCS ... well .... we will see, I guess.

That's what I worry about because:

DCS does not know the effects of surprise and ambush, and these are essential in combat.

But that's not Polychops fault of course. It's in EDs responibility.

But that's not Polychops fault of course. It's in EDs responibility.

I agree, but it is of course in Polychop's best interest that this is improved. And it is also in ED's interest, as they claim that DCSW can accommodate modules of all types and eras. Let's hope that Polychop brings to ED's attention, that AI improvements are critical for their modules to be fully usable.

I agree, but it is of course in Polychop's best interest that this is improved. And it is also in ED's interest, as they claim that DCSW can accommodate modules of all types and eras. Let's hope that Polychop brings to ED's attention, that AI improvements are critical for their modules to be fully usable.

I absolutely agree :thumbup:

At very low level, MANPAD don't shoot you. Needs to be VERY low tho.

I could wirte books about this topic, what a real combat scenario should look like.

Good idea, let us know when you start :D

nähh, the acedemies have them already written a couple of times. But it makes sence to ready tactical stuff now and then. You will adopt it without thinking of it.

Yeah no problem, this is the normal situation regarding this sort of information ;)

About real tactics, well we have info from Real Gazelle Pilots and how they implement thier tactics but we were asked not to share names and specifics.

So sorry GG Tharos, even if we would have such books we are not allowed to pass that stuff forward.