Jump to content

EvilBivol-1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6499

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Posts posted by EvilBivol-1

    Got bored and turned to the dark side.

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    All I’m saying is nothing much has changed in Lock On since old simulators such as Flanker 2 and even Su-27 Flanker. Except AFM, damage modeling, avionics tweaks and manga-like graphics.

    Judging from the rest of your posts, what you actually mean to say is that, even though much has changed since Su-27 Flanker, one very important aspect of the simulation has not - and that is the lack of a large-scale campaign engine in which the player is part of a larger environment, rather than the reverse situation we have now. With that, I would agree. We'll see what the future holds...

    R-27EA (AE) on Su-27

    in Military and Aviation

    Posted

    It then continues describing the 'datalink', or better called, 'INS with radio correction' of the R-27ET. It also states that the missile has a mode in the event of a lack of outside target designation (by radar or eos), which can be set by the pilot.

    I don't know FF... It only says that target information is passed onto the missile from the carrier aircraft. In the even that this is unavailable, there is provision of "autonomous" operation of the missile, selectable by the pilot. To me, this simply means using the seeker to target the missile, i.e. Fi0 targeting mode.

    Radar missiles

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    Wanted to repeat a point which I think slipped by unnoticed earlier. One of the main contentions seems to be that the classic air combat rules of staying high and fast appear to be reversed in LO, where it is far too easy to exploit the notch and hide in the clutter. I agree that this is the case, but the common repy to this IRL appears to center less on specific technology (radar, missile, or otherwise), but more on tactics, specifically multi-ship tactics. This is the general angle missing in LO. AI doesn't do it at all. In multiplayer, you are typically in no more than a 2v2, and even that is rarely done with proper comms, formations, etc. In reality, it is *always* done that way, and therein lies the ability to fight the notch and tag targets hiding in the clutter.

     

    IMHO.

    Radar missiles

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    Again, you might squeeze a couple miles out of your missiles by flying high...

    ?! According to my test, an AMRAAM fired at Rmax1 from 10K (meters) down to 2K will go autonomous nearly 10 seconds earlier and with about 800km/h more E than the same missile fired the other way.

     

    Regardless however, my general comment had less to do with this and more to do with the fact that I find F-pole and A-pole to work in the game, provided players don't exploit the code, like snipe their ETs knowing that this cannot be done IRL. Do you find that online IL-2 servers have much to do with WW-II air battles?

     

    EDIT: This is not to shy away from all things wrong with the modeling. I for one find it interesting that a maneuvering target lowers your Rmax1, but not your Rmax2, something that should happen and is modelled in F4. And there are certainly plenty other issues.

    Radar missiles

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    Well yes...but we're talking about radar missiles not the vikhr...or this is one of those things to be read between the lines?

    Ah, maybe I should've said thats what WAFM *will* be for? :) Truthfully, you can see in the tech. demos that some objects have already been WAFMed. But guided missiles are far more complex than small caliber ballistic rounds.

    Radar missiles

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    ...so despite diving from above the missile loses velocity as quickly as a normal "straight" shot.

    Not quite, as you can see in the 10K to co-altitude vs. 10k to 2k shot. Fired from the same range, the co-altitude shot gets there faster and with more energy. But, to be fair, this probably has more to do with loft (thinner air) than gravity. I think you are correct in that it isn't modelled correctly.

     

    ...but the fact that the missile isn't significantly slowed down due to climbing (again, cause gravity is either not modelled or undermodelled) ensures that it's range is more or less equal to a high altitude shot.

    Again, not quite. As a test, I repeated the 2K to 10K shot, but this time fired prematurely, with the 26nm range of the co-altitude shot. The missile got to A-pole in 47s at 878km/h. Compare that with the co-altitude performance of 36s. and 1583km/h. Although, again, you are correct in that gravity (or something) is wrong, because the same shot fired at 19.5 nm (~50% greater than Rmax1 on the HUD) actually reached the target and missed by proximity.

     

    Does ED plan to include effects of gravity...

    Thats what WAFM is all about.

    Radar missiles

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    OK, quick test:

     

    Me at 10,000 m., target at 2,000 m.:

    Rmax1: 26 nm.

    Rmax2: 9 nm.

    TTA: 38 s.

    Vmissile @ A-pole: 1583 km/h.

     

    Me at 10,000 m., target at 10,000 m.:

    Rmax1: 26 nm.

    Rmax2: 9 nm.

    TTA: 36 s.

    Vmissile @ A-pole: 2036 km/h.

     

    Me at 2,000 m., target at 10,000 m.:

    Rmax1: 13 nm.

    Rmax2: 3 nm.

    TTA: 10 s.

    Vmissile @ A-pole: 2795 km/h.

     

    Me at 2,000 m., target at 2,000 m.:

    Rmax1: 13 nm.

    Rmax2: 3 nm.

    TTA: 10 s.

    Vmissile @ A-pole: 2720 km/h.

     

    Note, TTA was measured by elapsed time from missile fire to start of target maneuvering (using TWS to designate). My plane is an F-15, missile in question is the AIM-120. Target is friendly Su-27.

     

    You can clearly see that the launcher's altitude is the determining factor in missile range. It doesn't look as though target's altitude is a factor, but it still influences missile kinematics. The two tests where I fired from 2000 look almost identical because the motor was burning throughout TTA and the missile did not loft. The difference in kinematics depending on target altitude is better seen in the Me at 10,000 tests.

     

    Other than that, D-Scythe, I think you are seriously underestimating the "game" factor. IMHO, people don't fly realistically less because of model peculiarities, but more because they simply can. They 'press the point' and willingly enter the 'NEZ' because, what's the worst that can happen? They die and hit Recover? Big deal... its worth it if it gets you a kill. In real life, well, you know... The notch may be abused or overmodelled, but it can be quite easily defetead with teamwork, which is exactly what we hear from the real deal, 'he might notch one F-15, but not a wall of 4' type of stuff. In my experience, if you set up some ground rules with your players and attempt to behave realistically, the game produces realistic results.

    Su-27SM

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    Hmm - are you sure about seekerhead bit Evil?. AFAIK the SARH seeker of the R-27R/RE is called "9B-1101K" and was produced by AGAT. Moreover, as mentioned earlier in this thread, AGAT is offering the 9B-1103M ARH seeker which fits the R-27 missile.....so it doesn't sound like the issue is with seekerheads, but rather with the R-27 missile as such(which is/was built by the Ukrainian factory).

    Sorry, missed that part. You're probably right, I was making an assimption on the seeker. But regardless, as long as any part of a system is produced elsewhere, it was no good. Again though, this is changing to some extent today.

     

    ...at least R-37s are supported...

    They are indeed, but these are (again... :D) not the same R-37s that existed originally. What the differences are is unknown, at least to me.

    Su-27SM

    in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2

    Posted

    I don't know about the "all Ukrainian" bit though.....the R-77 was under development in the latter part of the eighties - making it an "all Soviet" effort.

     

    That's correct. But the question is not in developmet, but production...

    ...the "RVV-AE" merely being an improved and refined version developed since then by "all Russian" R&D section

     

    Well, thats the big question: how does the Russian-produced RVV-AE compare with the original, Ukranian-produced R-77? Earlier, it was thought that it was "downgraded", but this may or may not be the case. Note, you're right in that the original design came from one place. It was only a question of production location. I.e. the Russians did not want to rely on weapons produced, even if only partially, somewhere else.

     

    Where did export R-27's came from then?

    Thats another good question. Pure speculation here, but seeing as it was for export, it could have very well been produced the same way it was produced prior to the break-up of the USSR. In other words, if the weapon is for export, there is no "domesitc-only" rule applied... Or perhaps the R-27 question has more to do with budgeting than rules, meaning that the AF simply didn't want to waste whatever meager money they had on a already obsolete weapon and instead invested in the future (RVV-AE), figuring that the R-27 stockpile is large enough to cover their needs. :confused:

     

    P.S. This "rule" is supposedly undergoing some adjustment as the military accepts the fact that domestic industry is simply incapable, at least at the moment, of producing realiable equipment at the desired cost.

×
×
  • Create New...