Leaderboard

Приветствую. Недавно тоже стал обладателем этой замечательной игры. Очень порадовало то, насколько серьезно (по возможности) разработчики подошли к точности иммитации бортовой авионики. И это есть хорошо. :) Но как известно, все хорошо не бывает ;) , и первое что бросилось в глаза (мне по крайней мере), это неправильная имитация работы подвесного оружия с ТВ наведением. Которое здесь представлено в виде КАБ-500Кр и Х-29Т. Возможно это связано с отсутствием времени у разработчиков, а возможно и с малой распространенностью этого вооружения и следовательно малым количеством информации. Не важно. В любом случае этот пробел не помешало бы заполнить. (надеюсь, патч, что лежит на сайте, не последний) Скорее всего, это уже неоднократно здесь обсуждалось, тем не менее, постараюсь обобщить. Во-первых, понятно, что при работе с ТВ вооружением, видеосигнал на МФИ идет с самой ГСН. И если разница в картинке с такой высоты и на таком маленьком экране не очень заметна (разве что в полях зрения камер), то символика у них совершенно разная. Да и в момент сброса, картинка либо пропадет, либо переключится на другую ГСН. Теперь в частности: 1. КАБ-500Кр с ГСН "Крым". Для начала один чисто визуальный нюанс, отличающий ее от других - блестящая металлическая сетка на стеклянном колпаке камеры, для ее экранирования от электромагнитных помех излучаемых оборудованием самолета. (Как на этой картинке) В модели бомбы ее увы нет. Символика на экране до примитивного проста - белое перекрестие, которое при целеуказании занимает весь экран, а в режиме АС примерно половину экрана (см. рис.1,2), причем, оно слегка "подслеживает" за точкой прицеливания, если ее не успевает догнать гиростабилизатор камеры, что бывает крайне редко. Также, при входе в АС масштаб изображения увеличивается примерно в 1.5 раза (на моих картинках этого нет). Есть еще такая фича, как стабилизация масштаба и перезапись эталона, но это уже детали, на них можно забить... Принципиальное отличие "Крыма" от других ГСН в том, что в ней используется корреляционный алгоритм наведения, поэтому захватывает она любое изображение, которое видит (поле, лес, облако на небе, итд.), независимо от наличия или отсутствия на нем контрастных обьектов. Причем хватает очень надежно, единственное, что может сбить ее с толку, это бегущие по земле тени от облаков - они тоже являются частью изображения и за ними тоже можно следить :) . 2. Х-29Т с ГСН "Тубус". Про нее мне известно меньше, живьем я ее никогда не видел. Экранную символику как-то показывали в "Ударной силе" (рис.3). Большое перекрестие неподвижно, а малюсенький крестик в центре "бегает" за целью. Скобка, видимо показывает ее примерный размер. Качество изображения, прямо скажем, так себе, слежения - тоже. :) Используется достаточно примитивный и ненадежный контрастный алгоритм, который часто срывается. На первых моделях, такой срыв и перезахват на другую цель никак не обнаруживался, поэтому на учениях нередко случались "забавные" случаи, вплоть до того, что однажды ракета вообще улетела за границу... Были попытки исправить ситуацию, поставив в ракету "костыль" в виде цифрового блочка, который отслеживал резкие изменения траектории и возвращал ракету обратно, на прежнюю цель, а также подрывал ракету, если она не долетела до цели за заданное время, но, честно говоря, не знаю, чем все это закончилось... Также, к сожалению, по каким-то бюрократическим причинам провалилась идея поставить на ракету "Крым". Вот так вот...

I've not voiced any opinion on threads addressing this issue for several reasons: 1) I don't want to give up any classified information 2) I needed to look around the internet for something I could say - if it's in the public domain, I can say it, but I can neither confirm or deny what I'm saying is true. :lol: 3) I don't fly online much except with the guys I like. DISCLAIMER: :noexpression: The following information is given out as my opinion on things that may or may not be true as I can neither confirm the plausibility, reliability or usage of any methods, tactics, techniques I'm mentioning. I merely point out that these techniques exist and are stated in websites carrying RELIABLE AND ACCURATE information on any topics discussed. These topics and OPINIONS do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAF or anyone currently or previously associated with them. They are solely my own views - take them or leave them, I don't give a rat's ass. Guess what? We use ECM blinking! :huh: Now I'm not a noob when it comes to ACBT, as some of you know. So you may wonder why I use it. Well let's get something straight first. I'm not talking about a 3,000 Hz blinker who does this to become invisible in LOMAC. I'm talking about using ECM to deny lock, break lock, or trash a missile solution. There's several types of ECM techniques, and the ones who've taken the time to actually do some research FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES might have heard of the following techniques for protection jammers: Blinking Noise Continuous Noise Doppler Noise Spot Noise False Target(s) Generator Multiple Frequency Repeater Range Gate Stealer Repeater Countdown Blink Stretched Pulse Velocity Gate Stealer Vertical Polarization Terrain Bounce... and many, MANY more techniques including those generated by aircraft in formation blinking their jammers in an asynchronous (not as effective) to syncronous (more effective) manner. Amazingly enough, as you can see, BLINKING is a technique used. Now it doesn't really matter what the little black box is doing inside your plane or on your pylon. The more important thing is that it does what it's supposed to do. IRL these techniques are used to, as I've said, to deny lock, break lock, or trash a missile solution. Now there's a problem with it as it relates to LOMAC. It's extremely effective, and doesn't reflect the ECCM capabilities of the radars on the launching platform or within the missile(s). Nevertheless it forces behaviors that are effective for training and usage of REAL LIFE tactics. As we all know, the Pk of missiles in LOMAC SUCK compared to their real life counterparts. At least for certain missiles. For others, they're overly optimistic (that, believe it or not, I don't really mind, as I'll point out). If all the missiles were slightly overmodelled, then I'd be a happy camper. Why? Because IRL we respect the hell outa any missile guiding on my priceless ass and the jet I'm flying. We defend against the missile BECAUSE THAT'S THE IMMEDIATE THREAT! We lose that fight & it doesn't matter where the launcing aircraft, his/her wingman, or the ground is at the moment we're converted from a human being to a cloud of blood, bones, and aircraft parts. A little more respect for the missiles is missing in any GAME, but is present in a sim. Now, what's the purpose of using this, what do you guys call it, a technique only used by noobs to get kills. It's to increase the Pk of the missile by getting closer to the adversary and decreasing all the "pole" distances. It causes the fight to be brought to the 12nm/22km distance where the missiles are more deadly, and provides for more realistic tactics usage and realistic missile defense, rather than using cranium-on chaff to trash missiles (chaff works best near the beam NOT nose-to-tail). What we've got in LOMAC is overmodeled countermeasures, undermodeled radars, and missiles. ECM blinking brings the fight closer and allows usage of realistic tactics. But my poor (insert aircraft here) doesn't have it! And you in your F-15 have a slammer! BOO HOO! Burn through in LOMAC is around 12nm/22km so ECM blinking in LOMAC provides no edge within these distances. If you're flying US aircraft you're at a decided disadvantage against an Alamo equipped adversary, as it's modeled in LOMAC anyway, since the ET can reach out and touch you without a launch warning from burn through distances, and the ER in LOMAC is an "arguably" better missile than the Sparrow. That leaves the bite off on chaff Adder and Slammer - not much of a threat to you - so called - expert fighter pilots whining about ECM blinking at ranges greater than 12nm/22km. Personally, I hope more potential adversary countries use LOMAC as their method of training. Why? Because you get a FALSE sense that missiles are weak, countermeasures are strong, and there's nothing in between. Real life, Alice, isn't found through the looking glass of LOMAC. If they (adversary air forces) get the above ideas, then when they try to convert these paradigms to the real world of missiles that hit, and countermeasures that aren't always successful, they'll have to suffer for it. Nothing can simulate real life, but real life. Things, however can be modeled closer to real life by forcing you to behave the way you would IRL, using RL tactics, missile evasion techniques, and weapons employment - along with a healthy respect for the guy who fires a missile at you. While the ECM blinking thing, like any (ok I'll use it here) PC simulation of RL isn't perfect, it suits a need, approximates a technique used IRL, and forces RL tactics. The thing that would make it better is modeling of ECCM - both missile and fire control radar - thus decreasing its effectiveness. Just my opinion, thanks for listening :noexpression:

Here are some screenshots from China Central TV-7 Military Report afew days ago.Maybe ED can make a Taiwan terrian and sell to PLA.:thumbup:

hello, few weeks, I developped a mod to display instrumentation on the G15 keyboard. Today we are on the V1.2 (in french sorry) If people are interesting, I can translante in english see this post http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=132286&page=5&highlight=skippy

Alright, may I add to this ECM blinking saga. I would consider ECM blinking with a macro a definite cheat and not-honourable conduct, especially online because many people are not able to do the same. heck, in that case anyone not having a HOTAS is in great disdvantage also but then again would you say someone having a HOTAS is a cheater? What if I use HOTAS to program certain commands to execute it in 1/2sec where as in real life the same procedure would take me 5sec? This topic/discussion is really turning up into beating a dead horse as really there are valid points to both sides. I would just personally say I don't think it's nice for someone using a macro to enable automated ECM on/off. I would consider that a cheat. Other than that, someone using his own hand to turn on/off ECM manually I wouldn't consider a cheat because a pilot can do the same. Weather or not pilots are trained and encouraged to do so will stay debatable.

Gravity... it's not air pressure. there's no air in spae. lol

Dot worry about them cali. god, they're a bunch of sore losers. but it's what they say. "all is fair in love and war" and we are simulation war. :D