Can I change the amount of countermeasures when playing MP?

[Crescendo]

Hi all,

 

I would like to know if it's possible to change the amount of countermeasures loaded on my aircraft when playing multiplayer as a client. I know how to change the countermeasures load-out when creating a mission, but obviously this is not useful when playing on a public server. I am hoping that there is a feature similar to the rearm radio menu, or a ".lua" file somewhere that I can edit.

 

Unfortunately, I think I already know the answer: Countermeasures load-outs can only be be set by the mission creator. If this is the case, I might make a thread in the wish list forum.

 

(As for why I want to do this, in the current DCS environment of non-integrated air defence and lack of human air-to-air threats, I find that 240 chaff is simply too much. For me the biggest threats are IR SAMs, so I greatly prefer to have at least 180 flares so that I may use them liberally and pre-emptively. Furthermore, mission authors often simply forget to appropriately adjust the CM load-out to suit the mission. For example, quite often I've flown missions with the default 240C/120F load-out where there are no radar-guided threats (other than AAA) to be found.)

[Speed]

The only ways I know of doing this would be editing Lua files you're not supposed to edit. So I don't believe there is a legitimate way of doing this. You'd be over-riding the server settings and mission set up with your own, that's not right.

 

I actually find I am often given too few chaff. 240/120 suits me just fine, usually. Try flying higher, if you're getting shot at, you're doing something wrong often.

 

I could easily be wrong and there could in fact be a more legitimate way of doing this, but if so, I've never heard of it. It would be nice if ED did eventually work in a feature that would allow us to specify a chaff/flare load out from ground crew.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Speed

[Crescendo]

I figured as much. Thanks.

 

By the way, it's not a matter of my recklessly being fired upon or killed by IR SAMs, it's just a matter of personal tactics. I maintain a hard deck of 12k feet when the situation dictates it, but if I need to break that for whatever reason over the target area, I like to drop pre-emptive flares until I regain a safe altitude. I find having more flares gives me more flexibility.

 

What's more, I can't remember the last time I've actually been threatened by a radar-guided SAM, because they are easily avoided with the present unrealistic implementation. Of course when I play a mission that dictates it, I do use the default CM load-out, or even add more chaff as necessary.

 

It would be nice to be able to have the option to do it yourself. Sometimes you can't trust those pesky mission-makers.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Crescendo

[Supersheep]

Hi!

 

Aren't you announcing your presence and position to anyone interested by pumping out these flares? I only drop flares when I am near a known IR threat and/or in a sensitive position like an attack run.

 

Am I thinking wrong here?

 

 

Super-

[Beagle One]

As far as I know preemptive flare deployment does not work in DCS anyway.

[TurboHog]

Although preemptive flare deployment doesn´t seem to work in DCS I do support the idea of being able to modify your countermeasures loadout in MP missions... Especially in missions where you fight insurgents that can´t field rader guided systems the chaffs are worthless. I´d rather go with 240 flares so you don´t have to worry about them...

[Speed]

Although preemptive flare deployment doesn´t seem to work in DCS I do support the idea of being able to modify your countermeasures loadout in MP missions... Especially in missions where you fight insurgents that can´t field rader guided systems the chaffs are worthless. I´d rather go with 240 flares so you don´t have to worry about them...

 

Maybe one of us should add a wishlist topic about being able to customize your chaff/flare load out with ground crew.

[Crescendo]

Hi!

 

Aren't you announcing your presence and position to anyone interested by pumping out these flares? I only drop flares when I am near a known IR threat and/or in a sensitive position like an attack run.

 

Am I thinking wrong here?

 

Super-

 

Well, I don't pump them out needlessly — only if I have reason to suspect that I might be engaged. Such circumstances would be if I break my self-imposed hard deck in a threat area, or if I am attacking any target below this hard deck and have reason to believe that the area is not completely sanitised of SHORAD (a prudent assumption in most cases, especially with MANPADS). When using the gun or deploying gravity ordnance I typically 'roll-in' on targets at close range from altitude, such that I am not flying at dangerous altitudes for any longer than I need to be. In other words, I'm not pitching down at 5° and continously dropping flares for 10 straight miles. :D

 

Visability is not a concern because I expect I will be detected when flying in that riskier flight envelope. In low altitude circumstances I think a known counter to the threat of being shot down (pre-emptive countermeasures) outweighs the unknown chance that I will be able to hide from the enemy by not using flares. (In any case, if you want to hide there are better ways of going about it (such as terrain masking), but those have risks too.) At high altitudes I doubt your countermeasures would even be seen, and you're going to be detected by radar anyway.

 

In short, I think you're going to be detected on the battlefield when flying around enemy positions at both high and low altitude no matter what you do, unless you terrain mask intelligently. It's not secret that any enemy force is going to actively expect to be attacked. The way I see it is that a non-radar guided enemy may visually detect me a few seconds earlier than usual if I'm pre-emptively dropping flares, but by the time that happens my flares are already 'protecting' me, and I'm either about to engage or I'm already egressing at speed having completed my attack.

 

For a fixed-wing aircraft that has the relative luxury of speed this makes sense to me. If I were flying helicopters I would behave differently.

 

I might be wrong of course. I'm always open to improving my practices.

 

As far as I know preemptive flare deployment does not work in DCS anyway.

 

I always assumed it did, and in practice believe it to be so. Perhaps this is purely placebo on my part. :shocking:

 

I'll do some tests tomorrow with a simple custom mission and will report back. For now I'm going to bed. :sleep:

[Crescendo]

Maybe one of us should add a wishlist topic about being able to customize your chaff/flare load out with ground crew.

 

I'll do so tomorrow, or I'll "+1" if anyone takes the initiative.

[Supersheep]

Your practice is reasonable the way you describe it, I think. I outlayed it a bit different ;)

Wish-thread is in the making.

 

EDIT: Never mind, you were faster.

 

Super-

Edited January 24, 2012 by Supersheep

[Crescendo]

As promised I did some testing of pre-emptive flare usage.

 

Testing parameters

 

Threat: 1 x SA-13 set to "expert" skill, oriented directly toward player aircraft.

Player aircraft: 1 x A-10C flying at 250KIAS, 9800ft, straight and level directly over threat.

Countermeasures: Flare program started at 4.0 miles slant range to target, runs continously thereafter.

 

Flight is repeated five (5) times with various levels of countermeasures. TGP measures slant range to the SA-13 at the exact moment of the SAM launch. This slant range is used as a crude measure of any delay in the launch due to flare employment.

 

Results

Test 1 - No countermeasures

 

Slant range at launch: 2.6, 2.7, 2.6, 2.7, 2.5.

Average slant range:

2.6

.

 

Test 2 - 2flares/2sec

 

Slant range at launch: 2.5, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6

Average slant range:

2.5

.

 

Test 3 - 1flare/1sec

 

Slant range at launch: 2.6, 2.5, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6

Average slant range:

2.6

.

 

Test 4 - 3flares/1sec

 

Slant range at launch: 2.3, 2.6, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6

Average slant range:

2.5

.

 

Test 5 - 4flares/0.5sec

 

Slant range at launch: 1.8

*

, 2.6, 2.3, 2.6, 2.5, 2.4

Average slant range:

2.5

.

 

* I have no explanation for this aberrant result, and it has been excluded from the data set. Perhaps even an "expert" SAM operator occasionally falls asleep or forgets to press the right sequence of buttons!

 

Conclusion

 

This small experiment suggests that the employment of flares does not delay an IR SAM lauch in any statistically significant way. Beagle One is correct.

 

Therefore, attempting to delay an IR SAM launch with a typical pre-emptive flare program (e.g. 1-2 flares / 1-2sec) is a complete waste of flares. Instead, a virtual pilot intending to take precautions against IR SAMs is much better off using short bursts of a typical IR missile defence program (e.g. 2-3 flares / 1sec) in vulnerable phases of his flight (e.g. on "final", egressing etc.). With this is mind, as of patch 1.1.1.1 the IR SAM doctrine should be defeating a potential SAM launch with liberal flare usage at key points in the attack envelope, not attempting to delay it with a "conservative" program and then transitioning to a missile defence program when necessary.

 

***

 

Assuming the DCS modelling is correct — a big assumption — this causes me to question my own knowledge about countermeasures employment. In the real world, is the idea to delay or defeat the missile? I thought it was both, but if it's the latter, why do I see A-10s only dropping small, presumably ineffectual amounts of flares (1-4 flares over a ~3 second period) when egressing from a gun run? (Admittedly these are only training videos and I have no idea what restrictions are in place, and what the actual point of the exercise is.)

 

Any subject matter expert care to clarify? :smartass:

Edited January 24, 2012 by Crescendo

[Frostiken]

Well that's disappointing.

[tintifaxl]

Thanks for the test. This will greatly reduce my flare consumption ;)

Edited January 25, 2012 by tintifaxl

[Eddie]

Crescendo,

 

You say premptive flares did not delay the launch, which is indeed the case as modelled in the sim at present (good testing technique by the way).

 

Now, did you pay any attention to what the SAM actually tracked once launched? In other words, did the launched SAM track the flares from the moment it left the launcher, or did it track the target aircraft initially?

 

And it's worth mentioning, that premptive flares will indeed hamper a human pilots attempt to launch an AIM-9. Something to remember if you find yourself in an MP flight with human opposition.

[Crescendo]

Crescendo,

 

You say premptive flares did not delay the launch, which is indeed the case as modelled in the sim at present (good testing technique by the way).

 

Now, did you pay any attention to what the SAM actually tracked once launched? In other words, did the launched SAM track the flares from the moment it left the launcher, or did it track the target aircraft initially?

 

Hi Eddie,

 

Good question.

 

I did indeed consider recording the pK (:D) of the SAM at approximately the "Test 4" phase. This is the point in testing at which the SAMs were reliably defeated by my flares. Luckily I have Tacview on at all times, so I went back and had a look at the evidence! Unfortunately, in a lot of the missions I simply exit as soon as the SAM is launched, but there are some examples to refer to.

 

Here's what I found:

 

The flare programs used in "Test 2" (2F/2s) and "Test 3" (1F/1s) are both poor when it comes to defeating the incoming SAM. The 2F/2s program is essentially useless and I was shot down repeatedly when using it. I would say that there is simply not enough flare 'density' to fool the SAM, especially when not maneuvering. The 1F/1s program is not much better — I was shot down almost as much as the 2F/2s program when flying straight and level. However, looking at the Tacview recordings, during one iteration of "Test 3" (1F/1s) I engaged in high-G missile defence maneuvers, and this did defeat the incoming SAM. It seems that the flare 'density' of 1F/1s is enough to fool the SAM seeker, but only if accompanied by missile defence maneuvering at suffcient altitudes.

 

Now, if we consider the 2F/2s program with this missile defence maneuvering in mind, I suspect that the flare 'density' of 2F/2s would still not be enough to fool the SAM. However, admittedly I have no Tacview evidence to confirm this one way or the other.

 

"Test 4" (3F/1s) and "Test 5" (4F/0.5s) is the point at which the SAM was defeated essentially 100% of the time without maneuvering. Of course I would have to run more than five tests to confirm this, but all missiles were easily defeated when using either of these programs.

 

To specifically answer your latter question, at at all times when using the 3F/1s program the SAM initially tracked the aircraft, and only veered off course after launch. In Tacview the SAMs clearly track the aircraft, and are defeated at about the half-way mark when the proportional navigation trajectory suddenly shifts. On the other hand, the 4F/0.5s program is inconclusive. 4F/0.5s certainly defeats the SAM launch earlier, with most Tacview recordings showing the SAM veering off course considerably less than half-way to the aircraft. However, two Tacview recordings in particular are very interesting. In each of these recordings the SAM does indeed appear to be launched while initially tracking the flares! Either that, or the change in trajectory comes so early that it is indistinguishable to my eyes.

 

Conclusions

 

Flare 'density' matters when it comes to defeating the incoming SAM. For my purposes I'll define flare density as the rate at which flares are dispensed, and the amount of flares within, say, <100ft of the aircraft at any one time.

 

Using an x/2s flare program does not appear to provide enough flare density, unless a high amount of flares are ejected at each impulse (say 5+).

 

Using an x/1s flare program appears to be the "sweet spot" for flare density and subsequently defeating incoming SAMs. 1F/1S is the absolute bare minimum required to do it, but must always be accompanied by maneuvering and high altitude to reliably defeat the missile. 3F/1s defeats the SAM easily without maneuvering (provided sufficient altitude), and would likely defeat the missile even at low altitudes with appropriate maneuvering. I didn't test 2F/1s, but perhaps this program is the best compromise in terms of flare economy and performance, as long as the pilot maneuvers appropriately and doesn't fly too low.

 

4F/0.5s is essentially a gimmick program and is not at all practical unless you intend to "one pass haul ass", but even then it would leave you with almost no flares to counter an unexpected threat. Nevertheless, you could set it to repeat only 4-6 or so times, which could be quite effective if you simultaneously start the program and execute a max performance jink/turn. However, this would make it a purely missile defeating program, not one you would use just "in case" as a jack of all trades.

 

In short: If your goal is to simply outright defeat the SAM at all costs, something in the x/0.5s range is suitable. However, if your goal is a more economical precautionary/defeat hybrid, something in the x/1s range is better. Personally, I think I'll program a typical 1F/1s program for economical high altitude "safe" situations, and a 2F/1s or 3F/1s program for all-altitude "dangerous" situations. :book:

 

And it's worth mentioning, that premptive flares will indeed hamper a human pilots attempt to launch an AIM-9. Something to remember if you find yourself in an MP flight with human opposition.

 

Good point. I'll remember that when FC3 comes out. :thumbup:

Edited January 25, 2012 by Crescendo

[Crescendo]

Thanks for the test. This will greatly reduce my flare consumption ;)

 

No problem!

 

Realistic or not, my flare usage is likely to drop too. At the very least my flare programs and employment tactics will change.