Roman G

The PC gamer had an interesting article about successor(s) of the Operation Flashpoint. It is little difficult to read but should be well worth the "effort" for every ground war simulation fan. http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics2/pcGameraug01.jpg http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics2/pcGameraug02.jpg http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics2/pcGameraug03.jpg http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics2/pcGameraug04.jpg http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics2/pcGameraug05.jpg http://ofp.gamezone.cz/news/pics2/pcGameraug06.jpg With a lot of small companies trying to perfect their war simulation products - I am wondering whether we (and they) would not be better off if they join their resources. What I would love to see is this: o I buy Armed Assault and play it. o Later on I buy LOCKON (or LOCKON successor). Since LOCKON & Armed Assault was "cooperative effort", I would be able to start LOCKON and join ongoing Armed Assault game session. So I could fly LOCKON's lets say Su-25T and kill ground units controlled by the "Armed Assault" game engine. This should work for Single-player missions or network/multiplayer missions. I know that this probably is never going to happen - but I think it would make sense if BIS and ED cooperated on join't product. Next OFP/AA looks to be designed from ground up with dynamic campain in mind. Lock-On does not have dynamic campain and Lock-On does not have user controllable ground vehicles (like Shilkas) and ground units. OFP/AA does not have realistic aircraft, missiles & radar behaviour. They both use huge terrains - so they can share their work on terrain engine. I think these two products could perfectly complement each other - if they were designed to do so ...

I just want to throw my vote for clickable cockpit here ... I would like to have it becuase I have far better "visual memory" than memory for the keystrokes. For example after running training track I (almost) perfectly remember what cockpit button I am supposed to push to for example change ripple quantity and such. But I cannot tell the same about key-stroke commands - running training track once is not enough for remembering them - I usually have to memorise the keystrokes by looking a couple of times into the Key doc file. And after about week or two of not playing LOCKON I forget a lot of keystrokes - but still remember locations of the cockpit buttons ...

Yes, the missile guidance seems to have much bigger problem with target changing course than the Skhval does - plus it is much closer to target so target's angular speed relative to missile is much higher than target's angular speed relative to Skhval ... Yes, if A-10 makes hard turn in the right direction (to inflict maximum angular change for the missile) in a right moment ( I guess about 5 seconds before the supposed hit - not sure about this though) then in my opinion the Vikhr should not be able to keep up ... Well - I would have to check my dictionary about what is "pure pursuit" and "well-timed break" in order to be able to answer this ... so maybe next time ... ;)

Actually this document: http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/download/English/JanFeb03/grau.pdf mentions that Vikhr HAS proximity fuse. And this source: http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/airfor/ka50.htm# say that "pilot can choose the type of fuse in flight" ... I agree that Vikhr should have big problem hitting maneuvering targets even under 800 km/h - mainly because it's 1-dimensional quidance control system. But we are discussing A-10 here - which hardly is a "fast fighter" I don't see Skhval gimbal limits as problem here - if the target is about 2-3 km away from Skhval - then even if it is flying at Mach 1 at 3 clock position relative to missile - it's angular speed is then about 15 degrees per second - even Su-25 should be able to turn it's nose that fast, and Ka-50 should not have any problem with 15 degrees per sec at all ...

I guess this one is for ZoomBoy to answer, but my understanding is that visual means that aircraft is visually tracking target and it is guiding the missile to it using the laser beam. Actually I don't think the laser is pointing at the target at any time except for stationary targets or in the last millisecond when the missile is supposed to make the hit. The Vikhr is BEAM RIDING MISSILE - it is NOT guided into the point illuminated by the laser. I think the laser is pointing in front of the moving target most of the time simply because that is where the missile is supposed to fly. I thought you said you understand the basics - like beaming - plus GGharos already said in this thread that Vikhr is beam rider and the missile sensors are not in missile head but in it's tail.

Well that would be my guess too - 800 km/h is upper limit and the target probably have to fly very level - and even then the kill probability is probably not too great. I know nothing about FAS so you might be right. Plus it's is their nation's technology - so they might be little biased too ... FYI, the LOMAC 1.1 manual is giving the same information about Vikhr - as capable of killing airborne targets flying at speeds up to 800 km/h ... In respect of resistance to countermeasures like flares and chaff - yes - the Vikhr should do better because it is guided by aircraft with more "brain" than any missile. An aircraft can carry a couple of times more Vikhr missiles than R-73s. In I think all other respects (range, maneuvering target, high target speed, high angle of attack launch, fire-and-forget, time to aim and fire, etc) - no - the R-73 should do better than Vikhr. Do you by any chance have track of maneuvering A-10 and Vikhr missile still hitting it ? I haven't tried it but when I am attacking row of moving tanks in LOCKON and about 5 seconds before Vikhr is supposed to hit one tank I move target designator to the tank next to him - then in about 50% cases Vikhr will miss. Since moving the target designator is about equivalent of maneuvering aircraft - I would guess that the probability of Vikhr hitting maneuvering A-10 in LOCKON should be even less - maybe 20-30%. So if it is 100% in your case then something does seem wrong.

Well, unless I can't read - you clearly stated in your previous post that that was the point (or at least one of them). You are twisting facts too far - aren't you ? If the link I sent you previously is not hoax then Vikhr is DESIGNED to kill also airborne targets with speed up to 800 km/h - and I presume by not randomly hitting them by pure luck. Well, in respect to not being fooled by a flare the Vikhr & Skhval are superior. In other respects - such as you can fire and forget R-73 or that you don't have to specify things like target size and manually mark the target - then R-73 is superior.

If you look at this link: http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/airfor/ka50.htm# there are these paragraphs there: "The combined warhead of the VIKHR Missile is fitted with different fuses. High accuracy jam-proof guidance system ensures effective engagement of different ground targets (with 900mm Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as the airborne targets flying at a speed of up to 800 km/h. The pilot selects required fuse in flight. The VIKHR guided missiles also are efficiently used to kill air targets, such as helicopters and strike aircraft, thus rendering air cover to friendly troops over the battlefield." So it seems that Vikhr is indeed designed to kill low-airspeed targets as well. Regarding the 100% kill ratio - I agree with you that it should be lower - I think the targeting system should lose some precision with increased distance to the target.

I am not an missile expert - but it seems logical to me that as far as you are not moving very fast (which you are not since you are in A-10) and you are within about 3 miles then Vikhr should have better kill probablility than R-73. As you said R-73 are pretty easily fooled with flares - the Vikhr does not have this problem - the "intelligence" of target tracking is not in the Vikhr missile but in the laser-beam-sourcing aircraft - which should have much more "brain" pover than any missile. Also - in LOMAC the Vikhr's engine burns for about 3 miles - if this is correct then Vikhr shouldn't have problem with loosing energy for this distance. When I fly Su25t then I rather fire Vikhr at helicopters than r-73. It just works better. Again - I don't know how realistic it is but it doesn't seem to me that far off from reality ...

The dynamic campain wish might be also fulfilled by ED indirectly by releasing SDK for LOCKON. ED is fairly small team and as such is not able to keep up with community wishes. A lot of features could be offloaded to third party developers if ED releases SDK. For example dynamic campain could be made by external programs/add-ons if LOCKON has ability to programatically create mission and read mission results. That way the add-on could dynamically create new missions by reading previous mission's results ...

OK, since nobody seems to know or care I will answer myself making my last post here. This place: http://maps.google.com/maps?&ll=37.1,-116.055&spn=0.005,0.005&t=k is Nevada Test Site. It's just about 100 kilometers (65 miles) northeast from Las Vegas. It is where United States was testing it's nuclear weapons until about year 1992. I guess most of the craters there are from underground tests ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site My intention for making this thread was make people aware of google maps. It looks that satelite images are getting more available and cheaper - which makes more terrain (and perhaps terrain SDK) more probable to appear in future LOCKONs ...

If you look at Shkval targeting system monitor after you fire missile you will see that it is showing exactly how many seconds are remaining to missile impact. So the su25t knows (ok maybe just approximately - but still I think within one second). OK, in that case it seems that su25t could be making the right decision ... Is there key to turn laser into override mode without need to turn it off first ? (NOW I AM ASKING FOR A KEY...) If I turn laser off even for a second then the in-flight-missile will be lost - and because I cannot fire another one in that moment (because target is usually too close) - it will be pointless to put laser into override mode. That makes the Su25t decision to shut off the laser right before missile impact even more stupid. If I was just about to hit the last tank - this makes the tank to survive the atack in the moment when Su25t is closest to it! In that case - if this was for real - I would rather burn three lasers instead of making another turn ...

What I actually mean is that the Su-25T should not auto-turn-off the laser illuminator if there is just about 2-3 seconds to missile impact. It should wait for three more seconds and THEN auto-turn it off. My original question was whether the real aicraft is doing the same thing. I am sorry if I misled all of you into thinking that I am asking about the "laser on" key or "laser override" key - which I am not. I was just reacting to Strannik's post which I don't know why he was reacting to as I was asking about the keys (he did not seem to read my posts AND he was hinting that I should read manual. What he suggested (to override the laser cooling mode) was not answering the question/problem)

I actually read the manual. If there is something I missed then please let me know the manual page number you are talking about. What do you mean "You can switch ON laser manually" ? Is there AUTOMATIC switch ON for for the laser illuminator ? Or is there SECOND manual switch for laser illuminator which cause laser to stay on even if it is overheating ? I know that after the laser auto-turns-off THEN you can switch it on again immediately by pressing the ON button quickly about five times (and it stays on until you turn it off). But this DOES NOT HELP because the in-flight Vikhr missile is already lost because of the auto-turn-off - and at this point it doesn't make much sense to turn laser on again because after going toward target for about a minute I am usually below minimum Vikhr range to fire another missile.

I am inclined to agree with Prophet here. The missile probably use IR sensor most of the time - as far as it see only one heat source. If aircraft pops a flare then the missile suddenly see two targets. If you have "visual spectrum sensor" then in THAT POINT ONLY you can simply overlay IR and "visual spectrum" images to determine which one is flare (you can use just single frame data for that). At most aircraft-to-missile angles the flare produces much more visible yellow-orange light than the aircraft so you can use visible spectrum to distinguish aircraft from flare. The missile does not have to process all "visible spectrum" pixels of the image - it can for example process only those pixels which overlay with "heat pixels" of the IR sensor. After this decision is made the missile can again switch to pure IR mode following the correct target. Gharos, the fact that you don't see how "visible spectrum" sensor can be used does not mean that somebody else will not find a way how to efectively use it. And if it is not the algorithm I described above it doesn't matter - somebody might find different one ...

I am turning on the laser right before I fire the Vikhr missile. I am talking about situation when there is multiple targets in close proximity of each other - for example convoy of vehicles on the road. In this case I am able to kill about three vehicles on single pass. My problem is that lot of times the laser is turning off just a few seconds before last target is supposed to be hit. I think it is more important to keep laser on for three more seconds than to auto-shut it off for cooling.

I know that. Sorry to not explain my point properly. My point is that if the 60 seconds laser auto-shut-off time is reached AND there is missile in air with less than 3 seconds flight time to target then Su25T should just wait 3 more seconds before auto-shutting off the laser. I can't imagine that the 3 seconds would matter that much to laser lifetime. If the laser is shut off then the missile will not hit (right before the impact) and if the target is the last one then the airplane would just have to make one more turn to kill it. Which seems to me much more dangerous to aircraft and the crew than keeping laser on for three more seconds.

I am wondering - in real Su-25T - the laser painter automatically turns off after 60 seconds even if there is homing Vikhr missile in the air and the missile's flight time to target is about 2-3 seconds ? I just can believe that the real Frogfoot is this "limited". This happens to me quite often - the laser designator turns off just before the missile is supposed to hit the target ...

Actually, after checking more on Tonopah - I am not sure that you are correct. Tonopah is I think north of "my" place and has MUCH smaller craters ...

OK, this one should require more of brain mass ... http://maps.google.com/maps?&ll=37.1,-116.055&spn=0.005,0.005&t=k What is on the map ?

I presume that it is quite safe for spotters to "paint" things like bridges and school buses with laser painter, but I think the spotter would be asking for a LOT of trouble if he is painting something like a tank for more than about 30 seconds. I think that any tank not older than 20 years has warning system which alert's the crew about being painted and it should not require much more complicated sensor on the tank to find out exactly where the laser source is. I wouldn't be that much surprised if most modern tanks have this function (to kill laser source) fully automated. So yes, it is not hard for an aircraft to put a diamond over laser-painted target - but I don't think this is the case in real life. Especially in LOMAC you can have about 10 targets where you can place your diamond on all the time - in real life that would mean that ALL targets would need to be constantly painted ALL the time.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=45.1,33.6&spn=0.25,0.25&t=k&hl=en For those who don't know - Google upgraded their mapping site to include satellite images for whole world. Most of the places are covered with about 25 meters per pixel resolution (my estimate), some places have resolution as hight as 1 meter per pixel ...

I was wondering about how realistic the target diamond is too. If somebody know please let us know too ... From technical point of view - it is doable. For that the aircraft needs either good inertial navigation system, or GPS receiver, or local radio based positioning system. Then it has to have database of targets coordinates and short program which projects the diamond for the selected target on the HUD. Coordinates might be already known for static things like buildings - for vehicles they can be retrieved from spotters or ground radar or AWACS. If the target is moving - then I don't know how the target diamond can be kept on target without datalink from AWACS or external radar ....

I am having hard time getting the target designator on the target with Su25T. The problem is that the targeting cursor sometimes (very unpredictably - each 2 to 10 seconds) seem just take it's own course and lot of the time I am basically faiting with it to push it in opposite direction to where the cursor is going on it's own - combined with trying to put it over the target. This is really not very pleasant. The cursor is sometimes wandering on it's own (less often) even if the targeting system is not locked onto ground point but tied with aircraft movement and I am not touching any controls. When I achieve target lock the lock is kept - most of the time, but from time to time the target lock is broken suddently and targeting cursor quickly wanders away from the target (I mean a MILE away - again without me touching targeting controls). I have (for about a month) CH Fighterstick, CH Pro Throttle & CH pedals. I binded throttle hat to the the target designator movements. I checked (a couple of times) whether something else is not binded to target designator - it is not. FYI, when flying A-10 - the target designator works fine there with Mavericks - it moves only when I move it.

For me also roads are not visible on monitor if they are over 10 km far. I have hard time to locate targets using Skhval - targes which I am expecting to find on the road without actually seeing the road. Any way to see roads if they are farther than 10 km away ?