SwingKid

Just wait till 1.2, when you pull the trigger in your A-10A and out the barrel of the GAU-8 pops a little yellow flag that says, "Bang!" ;) Won't there be a lot of changing tactics then! P.S. you misspelled "different" -SK

Oh for crying out loud. Before I respond to this, I want to hear from Ice - Is THIS what the problem is? You'd rather that the whole world of single-players have to cheat in order to change payloads in every classified mission they ever play, because it's too hard to change a filename when you can't make up your own mind what you want on your server? No way, there's gotta be something I'm not seeing here... -SK

Great. So now the people who want them to be shooting them down don't get them shooting them down, the people who don't want them shooting them down DO get them shooting them down, the people who don't like it are actually, strangely enough, kind of enjoying it, and the people who do like it think it sucks. Do I have all that correctly? Thank you. Carry on, -SK

Ok, so where does Ice's cheating problem arise? How does having a selectable payload in v1.11 classified missions have any effect on deciding whose MeInit file is being used? That's a separate problem, that also has nothing to do with the v1.11 change. We'd all be happy to see that fixed. As far as I can tell, the only thing that's changed for multiplayer is that now F-15s can use AMRAAMs whenever they want? If the server's MeInit.xml is forced onto the client, then just edit the server's MeInit.xml to remove whatever payloads you don't want the clients to be able to choose from. I'm sorry to be slow on this. Help? -SK

Bear with me Ice, I'm trying to follow along but as GG will tell you multiplayer is not SwingKid's forte... Can you confirm that the above problem actually occurs? I'm trying to understand how it happens. The client modifies his payload with a "cheat" MeInit.xml, and that payload gets uploaded to the server, regardless that it is illegal by the server's own MeInit.xml, and all the other clients'? If there is no such check, what was preventing the user from modifying his MeInit.xml so that the Stock payload assigned to him in an old classified, payload-protected mission doesn't substitute AIM-54s? The server was smart enough not to ask for the client's MeInit.xml data in that case? I detect a logical loophole here somewhere, but I'm not sure how it works. The old classification scheme only blocked the mission editor UI, it didn't prevent users from modifying their MeInit.xmls. So, the security against cheating should hardly now be changed. Maybe the cheaters are just too stupid to realize, and a placebo protection prevented them from even trying before? I don't think this is a good strategy for the long run. In any case as GG pointed out I think there are several methods to prevent this type of cheating without blocking the payload editing, but before we discuss them we should be sure they aren't in fact already implemented. We had quite a few online squads beta-testing this and I'm surprised this issue is coming up only now... Maybe I just wasn't paying attention and missed it? -SK

That's odd, I don't have a source handy but I distinctly remember reading the opposite. What did they mean by "precision"? Isn't a fuze just a binary on/off function? Like the Osa, Tunguska missiles are also seekerless beam-riders. The site takes 8-10 seconds to lock and fire on a new-detected target, and the proximity fuze isn't activated until a further 3.2 seconds after launch. Harpoons, Excoets and Tomahawks are at least trackable all the way from the radio horizon, reducing the lock-on and reaction-time problem. They've also long since separated from the aircraft. Has anyone tried this while the shooting A-10 is using ECM? -SK

Good site, but it's a misleading advert. Only the "Buk-M1-2" subvariant has the anti-TBM/ARM capability. The original "Buk-M1" entered service in 1983, the Buk-M1-2 now for sale was in development until 1997. You could make arguments either way about which is modelled in Lock On, but I think we all know which one is actually in service. Not your fault though, just typical Rosoboronexport maskirovka. Good checking. -SK

Hmm gee how about, "confusion" -SK

That's how I understand it, correct. The modernized R-73 and R-77 switched over to laser fuzes because it was possible to trigger older radio fuzes by flying through a cloud of chaff, or potentially by ECM. However, as missiles became more precise and were tasked to shoot down cruise missiles, it was found the targets were simply flying through the gaps in the laser coverage. So now radio fuzes are enjoying a come-back, IIRC there are even some "dual" fuzes laser + radio. -SK

Well, ok... that might not be quite as unbelievable as some of the other things we're now seeing, but then how did you originally come up with a Pk of "0.75"? Either way, I still don't want you grading my school assigments... ;) -SK

Out of curiosity, how does this work in multiplayer? The client's payload selection gets uploaded to the server? Wouldn't it be better to disable THAT step, rather than preventing single players from choosing their payloads in classified missions? -SK

"comedy"? Yeah, I like watching MiG-21s shoot down F-22s... :) "It's funny because it didn't happen to me" -SK

I must spread some reputation around before giving it to Gazehound again?? But this forum is full of losers!! :mad: -SK

Hey! You leave my friend alone, or I'm going after post #85! ;) -SK

Were there any other radars in the group or nearby, besides Dog Ears? Or maybe you waited until their longer, "no-Dog-Ear" reaction time passed, and launched on them only after they woke up? Or were these AI-fired Mavericks? -SK

Indeed, all very true... What's disappointing is that that "consensus" seems to have been pure placebo, since this outcome wasn't it. :( -SK

3 out of 5 = average 38%? Interesting methodology. Hey... were you the guy that marked my exam?? :mad: Is there an aircraft in the world that can launch it? -SK

Osas too huh? Not bad for a command-guided SAM that doesn't have a homing seeker in the nose... :( -SK

I don't understand, what is right? Strelas should be hitting Mavericks now? Or Strela-1s can see in the dark without IR? I'd like to know what I'm disagreeing with please. :) -SK

Confirmed. The discrepancy in what people are seeing appears to come from whether or not there is a Dog Ear radar in the group. If there is, then the accompanying Strela-10s and Strela-1s will shoot down Mavs, regardless day or night. So far I saw 2 kills for 2 shots. If there is no Dog Ear, then the Strelas seem to have too slow of a reaction time to detect incoming Mavs - they don't even attack my A-10 until I've overflown them. -SK

What do you mean one mission? There was not a single mission for which the player could change his own payload. Is this normal in any other sim? Maybe you don't understand, classifying is still supported. Hiding enemy units, preventing edits, etc. What has been changed is that the classification no longer extends to the player's own payload. -SK

This is a tough one... Everybody who played the default Su-25T campaign complained (with some justification) that it sent them against active ground defenses in the first mission armed with only unguided weapons, and no way to change that, or proceed to the next mission. It's another case of conflict between multi-player vs. single player needs. I abstain, and hereby flee in terror from this thread... ;) -SK

Is this some fancy way of saying it has ~60% hit accuracy against HARMs? :) Even the most generous literature for fourth-generation Buk-M2 model (that doesn't exist in service AFAIK) gives it only 40%. (Although I concede with some surprise that there exists documentation after all of yet a SECOND air defense system anywhere on this planet at least theoretically expected to be able to intercept ARMs) -SK

At what range? Note that in order to engage co-azimuth targets, the MiG-29S needs them to be separated by 10 km in range before it can resolve them as distinct. The Maverick never gets that far. Ok, Buk is somewhat better - its range resolution is 400-700 meters, but you get the idea. Tunguska's quoted reaction time to lock up a new target is "8-10 s" - the missile separation of a Maverick will be detected visually long before it can be tracked on radar. So, a Stinger would be a better choice to engage a Maverick than a Tunguska, because it has a better reaction time - and I think most would agree that's already hard to believe. -SK

Yeah, but a Tunguska missile's proximity fuze uses four lasers - useless against an incoming Maverick. So it's contact or nothing. If the SAM was accurate enough to contact a Maverick head-on, it wouldn't need a proximity fuze. -SK