SwingKid

Not taking one side or the other on the "WTF", but for those that feel a smaller missile should generally have longer range than a larger missile... Can you explain, "why"? -SK

You generally have my support, all good ideas, although there are many more out there, e.g. my own :) I don't know about the "15 nm" auto-acq range. The F-15 should have 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 nm range scales, I don't know where this "15" originated from. Peter Davies' book says the original auto-acq modes use the 10 nm scale, but at least one (long-range boresight "LRB") was added with 20 nm range (beating normal boresight's 10 nm). -SK

Hehe... I like you too. You're the first person I ever saw who said Lock On was set "a few years in the future." :) I don't think ECM is so hard to model as missile physics. THAT is really hard IMHO, but just as important. The ECM prevents the missile from using an optimal trajectory, and thus increases its drag and shortens its range. So in order for ECM to bring us properly into WVR combat, we need good missile physics too, that knows how to behave differently when fired on different trajectories. It's a dream, but I think it's possible... one day... if we ever stop making helicopters. ;) -SK

Yes, this is my dream... Just like Vietnam, and Falcon 3.0... Imagine, modern day "Il-2", where we actually get to see each others' amazing 3D models and aircraft skins from the cockpit, instead of just external-view forum screenshots... All thanks to ECM. I'd rep you again! but it won't let me; seems I've already repped everybody in sight. It's the thought that counts? :) -SK

Not true. -SK

The caption under the image in post #26 gives a hint - "burn-through" can be tactically significant when the jamming is in the victim radar's side-lobes. For example, in Lock On, we can get an azimuth-only lock on a target even if it is using ECM. This involves aiming your radar antenna directly at the target. You know the bearing to the target, you just don't know its range. If jamming is entering the antenna sidelobes, on the other hand - not only can you not tell the range to the target, but you can't even tell the bearing. No matter which way you point your radar, jamming power looks like it's coming from that direction (when really it's coming from the side). This can "white out" your radar display (as opposed to the nice, easily-locked vertical band we have now in Lock On). This sidelobe jamming is what gets "burned through". Eventually, as the range closes, the jamming on the sidelobes can't compete with the signals being received in the radar antenna's real direction of focus. This allows you to break out the target bearing "vertical band" from the rest of the noise on your radar display, and fire weapons in the correct direction. But that is Vietnam-era stuff. Modern phased array radars have special techniques for suppressing sidelobe jamming, so we don't generally see any sidelobe jamming at all in our sims, but rather only the nice clean vertical strobe on the correct bearing to the target. That part of the jamming, on the main beam, should practically never "burn through". Can you quote the context of the ANG article? Is it talking about "burnthrough" accomplished by older radars like SA-2, SA-3? -SK

That's why I think conical scan is obsolete. ZSU-23-4 Shilka now relies on backup optical tracking against slow-moving targets, or is retained for anti-infantry work, while Vulcans have been removed from US inventory altogether. AFAIK modern systems like Tunguska can no longer employ conical scan. Of course, they still can in our sims, because our ECM is dumbed-down... ;) -SK

Yes, that's true... Some months ago I thought I solved the mystery - I discovered that there actually was a pretty good reason why Lock On can't do this (but Flanker 2 could). Unfortunately, now I forgot what it was... :icon_redf -SK

Note that inverse gain and velocity deception are pretty useless against monopulse radars and seekers with AOJ and HOJ capability. I think something between a blinking noise jammer and a repeater is the best you can do in modern warfare, short of terrain-bounce and towed decoys. -SK

Hi Raptorman, First let me say welcome to our forum, and thanks for your article! I often visit the Frugalsworld board for a second opinion, and notwithstanding some of my earlier comments in this thread, there are many knowledgeable posters there. Even the topic I linked, that at first didn't get any replies, eventually evolved into a fascinating discussion. The radar in Lock On is IMHO more complex than in Falcon 4 - there are two doppler notches modelled that vary according to fighter/radar type, and sidelobe noise that affects detection range at low altitude - realistic features I've never seen in a sim before. The ECM on the other hand is not much more realistic than in Falcon 4. It seems to be a very wide-band, low-power pure-noise jamming that is modelled, allowing bearing-only tracking and also a significant burn-through range. At least, it looks a little nicer and easier to recognize in the HUD and HDD, nice vertical strobes that you can lock onto without any range information at all. If I'm not mistaken, an ECM target co-bearing with a non-ECM target can even mask it with its own jamming - something I don't think is implemented in F4. My personal gripe is that we often get requests for ECCM features that lack a solid understanding of ECM in the first place. I would love to see the ECM in Lock On improved so that you could no longer make lofted-missile attacks on ECM targets, and so that you would need to use triangulation maneuvering to compute the range to an ECM emitter, but if there is a 25-nm burn-through range as exists in other sims, none of that ECCM stuff is ever going to make sense. Sometimes people seem to want to carry over their favourite features from their own imagination, or from their other favourite sims - like "picking up ECM targets in Standby mode". From your post it sounds like in addition to a detailed review of Falcon 4, you've also done some research of real-world techniques. Have you seen Stimson's "Introduction to Airborne Radar"? There are many interesting details in that book. I don't know why more sim makers don't try to use it, instead of inventing their own "abstract" ECM that is never quite realistic. It blows away a lot of the veil of official secrecy from the topic, and seems to be just waiting to be discovered and used by an enterprising team of programmers. Thanks for interest, -SK

Ah ok, maybe it's my ignorance, thanks for that help. What I noticed is that in the mission editor, if you're creating a single mission, then you may select a log book pilot name, but if you're creating a campaign, you can't. It didn't occur to me that this list of logbook pilot names in the single mission editor was NOT the list of logbook pilot names we are supposed to use, but rather, that we're supposed to select the pilot from a different screen. I'll try it out. The campaign will also save your debriefing, while a single mission doesn't. And a single mission can be used for multiplayer, but a campaign cannot. I had a hard time understanding this, and clearly still have more to learn. What is the procedure for receiving promotions and awards? -SK

If they do, I never figured out how in two years of trying. I can't seem to choose the log book pilot to use in the campaign, only single missions. Welcome to our single-player paradise... -SK

How would it apply to campaigns? I thought the log book was inaccessible from campaigns? -SK

Don't worry, the flyable helicopter is coming soon. -SK

Please clarify - these are classified missions, that still allow cheating to occur?? -SK

How did those weapons get on there in the first place if the server's MEInit is being "forced down" to the clients? I don't see how editing the server's MEInit is going to make any difference, it doesn't look like it's being sent at all. Was this a classified mission? -SK

*bump* ...nobody wants free rep? :) There must be SOMEbody I haven't already given it to yet..? -SK

a lot of that stuff turns out to be wrong anyways -SK

You need to know how to read and follow given instructions. Judging from the (forum post : private message) ratio we see here, nobody qualifies. :p -SK

AFAIK, GAI have nothing to do with AWACS. Remove the AWACS from the mission and you should still see the exact same identical behaviour from GAI. They attack anything within 90 km, regardless of sensors. No? -SK

Some map editing tools created by the community are already available. Anyone who is interested to seriously work on the map should send me or Alfa a private message (PM). Everybody else should stop asking ED for these imaginary "tools". -SK

Yes... The irony is, that this feature is already coded... only it works for .cmp files, not for .mis files, so it's useless for multiplayer. :confused: Shout from the rooftops - WE NEED THIS ABILITY!!! IMHO - more than any other bug fix or feature http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=113494#post113494 http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=30298#post30298 http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=5126 http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=topic&t=42 http://lockoncampaign.com:8811/board/index.php?a=topic&t=61&min=15&num=15 -SK P.S. I am splattering you with rep, and anyone else who agrees

If I'm not mistaken, this gives: Speed (Mach) at start of climb Altitude at start of climb Speed (Mach) at end Altitude at end Distance (from airbase?) from which the "climb" command is given. (?) -SK

Ok, let's say that there is a multiplayer match where one player has the PhysX card and the other player doesn't. Who sees the flying bricks? Only the player with the PhysX card? Or both? If only the player with the PhysX card, then those flying bricks would cause a conflict between the results recorded by player 1 and player 2. The only way to avoid this conflict, is to make sure that the flying bricks are purely "cosmetic" and optional. That is, they can fly around, look pretty and make a lot of noise, but they can't change the outcome of the mission from success to failure. If the flying bricks CAN affect the mission result, then the information about the flying bricks needs to be transmitted somehow to the player 2, who doesn't have the PhysX card. In that case, you need a second, separate internet connection for the PhysX card, as for the CPU. Or, the data from the PhysX card needs to go back through the CPU, before going out over the internet. Why not keep that data in the CPU in the first place? It's not faster than moving it around all over the place, from one processor to another, maintaining synchronicity between so many different parts? I am not an expert, but that is how graphics accelerators work. They are optional "effects" processors that don't affect the mission result in any way, they only help fps. If the PhysX is not also an effects processor, then I don't see how it will avoid causing serious compatibility problems between players who do and don't use it. It becomes necessary equipment, not an optional help. -SK

Well we he seems to have been a real expert about blowing up his tires, breaking apart his aircraft and exploding his own guts over the canopy. Did he ever hear of "ground effect"? Or, they don't teach how to land in test pilot school? ;) -SK