Rhen

Sure, it's a good idea because of the limitations of monitors and graphic cards and the graphics engine. I've been suffering from the 2nm sudden disappearing act when trying to track bandits or my own wingman. This would certainly - while not totally realistic - give the pilot the ability to see something that they can see IRL. On another note, I also wish the servers would increase our ability to look behind the jet. While it's hard to slew the head and twist and lean the torso around under G's it's still possible and I'm always irritated that we can't look behind us.

Hmm, I seem to recall a rabid group of Falcon4 fans saying/intimating the same thing about LOMAC in it's development stages. :music_whistling: Whoops! Did I say that out loud too? My heavens! :smilewink: :P :doh:

All I know is that the undisputed king of air to air - the Eagle, gets its butt handed to it when going against the Raptor. The SA in the pit is tremendous and with the slammer-D, you can see when the slammer gets autonomous lock on it's target and if it loses lock during its flight. It integrates anything with a data link (JSTARS, AWACS, RJ, you name it) without shining your radar anywhere. Then there's the radar, which has virtually no scan rate, can lock and jam a contact simultaneously, and can paint a fighter sized contact at significantly greater distances than any competitor out there. I'd much rather be in a 4ship of Raptors with 24 slammers, than in any other 4ship of any other type of fighter out there. Sorry, but despite it's price tag, it still leverages the tech out there better than anything else flying. This isn't about US vs Russian vs European tech, it's about new tech vs old tech.

When you fly the F-16, you're not flying the jet. You're asking the FCS for "permission" to do something like bank the aircraft or rate the nose around. The FCS determines what it will let you do and then give you what you want or what it can give. Make no mistake - unless you fly a FBW Airbus or Boeing product - you're not flying the jet. You're just a meatsack playing with your joystick :P . The FCS is the thing that flys the jet. This is required because the jet is inherently unstable. In your bug smasher, you pull the nose up 10 degrees or bank the aircraft 15 degrees. The jet will oscillate slowly back to it's last trimmed condition with the oscillations dampening out at the attitude it was last trimmed for. In a fighter jet, which is unstable, if there weren't a FCS flying the jet the nose would oscillate with greater amplitude or continue to bank or nose up. The FCS makes the jet flyable for a meatsack. Regarding the F-16 landing, it's harder to land because if you're carrying any excess airspeed, the FCS will change that airspeed into a balloon. That's why it's important to fly AOA in the F-16. The F-15 OTOH, is as easy to land as a souped up cessna. You've got to fly with more finesse to fight in the F-15 as well. You can't just yank on the stick the way you can in the F-16. The Eagle will allow you to pull as many Gs as you or the aircraft can stand. If you just hamfist the Eagle around, you'll end up slow and get eaten like a grape in BFM. You've got to listen to the aircraft when it talks to you. When the aircraft is in the light buffet you're max peforming the jet but keeping your airspeed (corner). If you're in moderate buffet, you're bleeding airspeed like a pig. You get more in tune with the sound of the airflow around the jet as well. Regarding fighterops, it's a pretty ambitious project. Check it out at http://www.fighterops.com

Interesting discussion you've got going here, however you are operating under several misconceptions::doh: 1) There's no such thing as a 38,000 Lb F-15 with full internal fuel, unless it's stripped down. The basic empty weight (Aircraft + Unusable fuel + Oil + Pilot) is around 28-29,000 (varies with each aircraft, but we flightplan a generic aircraft). Add to that full internal JP-8 which is roughly 14,000 Lbs & that gives an aircraft weight of 42-43,000lbs. BTW, can you even remove the wing pylons in LOMAC and do they account for any drag or weight to the aircraft (this will affect the climb - at least IRL). Weight of the aircraft with BEW+wing pylons+4LAU-114racks+Full internal fuel is roughly 44,000lbs (my memory is a little stale here but I think my numbers are correct). 2) The above climb charts are based on flying the aircraft in a certain manner - the dash-1 specific climb schedule. Hold brakes, run engines up to 80% RPM, release brakes, throttles into burner, rotate at 120KCAS to 10 degrees pitch, airborne at computed takeoff speed (or basically whenever the aircraft decides to fly - we compute this speed), gear and flaps up after airborne, accelerating to 350KCAS, hold 350KCAS to M0.95, hold this or 40degrees nose up, whichever comes first. 3) if you're using that chart to find a specific time to climb, you must hold your pitch THROUGH that altitude - i.e. don't try to level off, but maintain M0.95 through the desired altitude, just stop timing when that altitude is achieved. 4) the chart is based on a Standard Aeronautical Day = 59oF/15oC, 29.92inHg/1013.25mb, with standard lapse rate of 3.5oF/2oC up to 36,000ft. Is this even modeled in LOMAC?:huh: If you're flying in the Crimea in the summer, you must use the bottom left temperature corrections above standard day temperature. 5) Did you remember to add 30 seconds to whatever the chart gives you as a time to climb IF you're looking for time to climb from BRAKE RELEASE. This is a critical point, as the number for the chart only gives you time from attaining 350KCAS to level off. 6) Yes the F-15 can take off and climb straight up - however, to do this we do the above procedure, but hold the aircraft close to the ground (anywhere from 5ft to 50ft pilot pref.) and accelerate to 350KCAS (or more for a more spectacular climb), then pull the nose smoothly into a 90opitch attitude. The engine thrust will fall off as you climb, parasite drag will begin to decrease with decreasing airspeed & induced drag is negligible (pilots are aware of these things - in a big-picture sense, but don't need to know the numbers, just the shape of the drag curve.:music_whistling: ) That's about all i can think of right now.

because, despite the "nature" of these aircraft, there's still many of us that fly it, even in it's current state.:joystick:

If you've got a few $ stashed away, try a delta-wing out for yourself. http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/detail.asp?OHID=1097347&guid=520D1A93CE2E4CBAB90AFF243F87CBED

Not that I've noticed, although it makes HF radio transmission and reception pretty crappy.

@Britradardude. Actually it's quite accurate. The ATO designates what we will squawk for the different modes. While you are correct that Modes 1,2,3 are available for all military assets, these codes are input IAW the ATO. We can then interrogate mode 1 and find out what base the aircraft is from, mode 2 for it's type/mission, mode 4 for - as you say - "identification friend or ?". It's actually IFF/SIF - Identification Friend-or-Foe/Selective Identification Feature. We interrogate each of the modes to determine WHAT the aircraft is doing, WHERE it's from, and whether it has proper Mode 4 ID. The Blackhawks use of Mode 1 would have enabled the F-15s to determine where the copter was from and where in the ATO to find it's info, which could've been looked up by the AWACS. When the other modes (other than mode 4) are not programmed correctly or lacks all the ATO programmed IFF/SIF modes, we use the code word SPADES since that contact does NOT exhibt the modes and codes for ID, as in this case.

Quite correct, if two targets - one friendly and one enemy who's jamming are within close proximity, interrogating IFF of the friendly will cause the enemy to appear as friendly as long as they can't be resolved. Realize also that IFF is a little like Mode C. NATO has modes 1, 2, 3 (mode c), and 4. Each of these can be interrogated and responded to independently of other methods of threat identification. With regard to the blackhawk shoot down, one of the pilots was my contemporary. In his defense, the blackhawks were flying off of a flight plan (hence AWACS didn't know about them despite being a flight listed on the ATO), the F-15s did not pick up a signal from the blackhawks after attempts to interrogate the blackhawks mode4 (the blackhawk mode 1 was incorrect or not inserted), they got picked up by the F-15s radar and the AWACS confirmed their presence. Unfortunately got vid'd incorrectly because the F-15s kept their speed up and safe distance from them to prevent at least a guns hit from the hind. This is a Hind You make the call at 450knots, when the AWACS isn't calling them friendly either.

It's been said that since an online player does lots of practice on the simulator that he/she could beat the accurately modeled missile in an accurately modeled aircraft. This may - in theory - be true, but what exactly do you part-time fighter pilots think REAL fighter pilots do for a living? They're not gas station attendants who are occasionally allowed to fly a $30million aircraft for fun a couple of times a week. :rolleyes: Fighter pilots spend 8-10 hours/week flying, they spend 15-20 hours planning for those missions, they spend 5-7 hours debriefing those missions (less for ANG/AFRES), they spend a couple of hours in the vault doing target study, threat study, etc. Then they have an additional duty or two as their secondary job. You may think that you've had many engagements with a slammer, but what do you think fighter pilots do when we go fly? We go up in a 4-ship, fly out to the MOA/Restricted area (some piece of NATO airspace), split up into 2-ship elements and fight each other with slammers, sparrows, sidewinders, and guns. Granted, it's simulated - JUST LIKE Lock On (funny that...). With all that full-time work doing "pilot shit," you think you could evade a real slammer in the real aircraft and pay real consequences? :icon_toil Tell ya what, get a good racing sim and practice driving around at 250kph until you're good. Then you and a friend get in your respective cars, each with an AK-47, and drive down the autobahn at 240kph and try to take each other out without wrecking or hitting the "civilian" traffic on the road. Tell me how it goes. :p

While the BS airframe will be in the notch, the rotor blades won't. A stationary helicopter will be visible on an F-15 radar as long as the blades are turning (let's say turning fast enough to sustain flight).

Well! What a witty reply! I'm quite impressed by your humor.... Thanks for the DUH! moment. I can appreciate that - at least.:p Look, obviously you aren't one of those people who fly the Eagle - which is fine since if everyone flew the Eagle, then we couldn't fly against the MiGs or Su's. But liberally slathering your comments with bull and blowing sunshine up my posterior sphincter with your wonderful comments on giving us a HUD (how gracious!) or a way to view my stores (wonderful!) or the fact the at the F-15 has a radar (marvelous!) and wings for that matter (Stupendous!) and I should live with that? Well, ok. I guess i have to, but that doesn't stop me or YOU for that matter in complaining about something that's not modeled appropriately or inhibits your enjoyment of the sim. The sim is a product, and while i am enamored with the product overall, I nevertheless will continue to point out things that are a mutual concern for myself and others who share my disappointment in some aspects of the sim (notice i didn't say game? :) ). So, while I value your opinion and will continue to learn from your knowledge of how things work in this sim, please don't try to mollify me with comments about things being "decently functional" and - paraprasing - "live with it." I'm already living with it, i just wish they would spend some time fixing it too. My opinion - obviously not yours. That's nice to know. I'm glad you understand. So do we. Does that make us members of the same club now? :p BTW, since we understand why the fixes aren't happening, it still does not obligate us to being happy with it.

I appreciate that, and can only assume you're right about the modeling not being about equalizing the playing field. I just get hot under the collar when it's all left to languish because it's "decently functional". While I advocate for the Eagle, I'm also suggesting that the MiG and Su's get fixed up as well, however my theoretical knowledge of them is much more than my hands-on knowledge when it comes to them. Fighter pilots (US/NATO) of the LOMAC era respected the capabability of their "Soviet" counterparts and knew that the kill ratio had to be in our favor just to survive. If we couldn't kill them 10:1 then by sheer numbers (not just their skill and expertise) we would be in for a serious world of hurt. So, we played to our strengths and their weaknesses. What I'm seeing is that these historic strenghts and weaknesses have been equalized on both sides, perhaps not intentionally, but it's affecting the tactics that we use and making LOMAC overall feel (online) more arcadish rather than like a sim. If i wanted to play a FPS, i'd go do that. I'm more interested in LOMAC and hope that it doesn't become more like a FPS than a place where we can learn what it's like to be/re-live/or practice real-world tactics against thinking, breathing human beings of like-minded thought.

TIR is a must for LOMAC. There's no other way to check things out because you have to zoom into the cockpit gauges to read them (fuel), etc. Also, since you're a gunzo type of person, you'll appreciate the advantage it gives you in quickly searching different areas of the sky. With regard to missiles, fighter pilots spend a lot of time in the vault studying the adversary. They know the ranges of weps, and the capabilities of their threats. There are many tactics developed to defeat a missile, the most common is to make the missile expend all its energy trying to stay with you. Think of it this way, you're in a dogfight now with a missile. You've got to make the missile do it's best BFM to formulate and fly a collision course with you. so make the missile expend it's energy, but be ready with the "last ditch" maneuver - the orthogonal roll - putting the missile on your beam and your lift vector perpendicular to the missile's flight path & pull into the missile, in an attempt to make it overshoot. Be aware - when the missile overshoots, it will explode (at least IRL) and you could have some part of your aircraft in its cone/sphere of shrapnel. Let's take lomac as an example using the generic Slammer. At mach 4 it's going 40 nm/min. you're closure with a bandit is going to be around 18 nm/min (assuming you and your bandit are intercepting each other at around corner velocity). If you have a launch at 20 nm (best case long-shot), the time to travel is about 20 sec (give a take a fraction). The "last ditch" maneuver should be performed in the last 5 seconds of missile flight (which is easier to see for a SAM since it looks like a telephone pole coming at you), but near impossible to see an A/A missile, as it's still anywhere from 3-5nm away from you (can you see a fencepost pointing at you from that distance? Neither can I). So somewhere around 15sec you should be doing your last ditch maneuver to defeat the missile. Mind you, this is all predicated on a 20nm shot or a shot pretty darn near Rmax. The best thing to do is make the bandit go defensive first with the first missile, and while he's doing his best missile defense - and getting slower and lower, shoot again after you see his aspect begin to change and he's trying to put his nose back on you. But don't forget, you might also have to do your best missile defense back (it's only fair since he showed you his, you might have to show him yours!).

Unfortunately in LOMAC you've got a lot to do in managing the radar - it's almost a full-time job! As the contact gets closer he's either flying out of the upper elevation limit or the lower elevation limit of the radar cone. Next time you design a mission, lock up a target at range - oh let's say 60nm, and then cycle through the range displays at 80, 40, 20, & 10 and observe the elevation limits of each display. This is what the bandit's taking advantage of for you to break your lock. YOu've got to constantly fine-tune the display to maximize the cone elevation limits when you're searching for something, then you can either fine-tune it so the bandit's painted more often thus increasing your updates, but also risking the possibility of not seeing his wingman who's lower and now not in your cone, ready to slap you with a heater. It's all about using what you've got to work with. The pilot workload in this Eagle is much higher than IRL.

Thanks for the suggestion, I've tried this, but unfortunately it's only a "decently functional" workaround, as some of the guys I fly with pince on occasion and that would require me to drop targets at my gimbal limits - especially the good ones who are at both gimbal limits (I hate committing early ;) ). I have adjusted other tactics, as you say. Going co-altitude is also a "decently functional" workaround as the look-down/shoot-down capability of the F-15 radar isn't as poor as it is in LOMAC (but of course, it's one of the strengths the Eagle is known for). When "properly" employed, the Eagle usually stays "above it all" and doesn't have to get down to the bandit's level to ensure target lock(s) and guidance of missile(s). It' just is disheartening that "real world tactics" require much modification in this Eagle, all of these modifications put the Eagle in greater jeopardy, thus equalizing the fight (obviously no good fighter pilot wants an equal fight - he wants an unfair fight in his advantage).

When the training stops and the fighting begins, you still fly like it's training - at least at first. Then you get used to ACTUALLY dropping your bags & doing the other things that are required in a tactical environment. I don't know how many times this was repeated in combat - but in the first few days of any combat action it takes a little bit for everyone to settle down and think about the fact that there's really a good chance that you could be shot down or hit the ground while maneuvering, or that you might actually have to practice the "last ditch" missile defense against a SAM or A-A missile (let's not even talk about MANPADS). The first few days of combat actions, the maintainers in the F-15 community just plain KNOW, the pilots are going to bring back over-g'd jets. We're going to react - quite violently - to missiles shot at us and because we have no G-limiter, we're going to maneuver hard (sometimes too hard for Betty, but the jet can handle it - thanks to the maintainers). It sucks for the maintainers because they've got a whole lot of inspecting to do on that jet, it sucks for us, because it takes a jet off the flight line, but by God, am I happy to be back alive! We all react differently under stress, but because of the training I received in the fear, sarcasm, and ridicule school of fighterpilot training, I'm more worried about fooking up, than getting killed (more or less ;) ). That single engine puke lived through the experience and had a tale to tell at the bar. That's good enough for me. I'd rather have that - not punching off my tanks, and having to use burner to get back up to speed (especially out of the AAA envelope - BIG DEAL!), than cause something stupid to happen to my wingmen because of my buffoonery. You live and learn - if you think fighter pilots are perfect, THANKS! You've bought into our hype! ;)

Hehe, that's the thing about maintainers (&prolly Hawg, too ;) ). Pilots want to fly the aircraft, & maintainers... well, if they had their way, they'd be sitting nice & pretty on the ramp & if we pilots would just keep our hands off them, they'd all stay code 1. BUT! Any OG/CC knows (he's a pilot, so he'd be biased anyway) that if you fly the jets, they get the bugs worked out of them and will have a better operational rate - (barring the rotten desert conditions - sand, espcially).

When launched within parameters, the slammers actual Pk is 95%. NO! NOT IN LOMAC! (but IRL :cool: )

When the only world you live in is the virtual world, well then the Sparrow IS better than the Slammer....;) At any rate, there's a difference between a "maddog" launch, and "Pitbull". The missile goes active immediately off the rails in a maddog so the warning should come sooner. On a guided launch in TWS there shouldn't be a warning until the missile goes pitbull and the missile is actively trying to acquire the target. I think Goya has a point.

Ok, on what planet do you think there exists a nation that gives its multimillion dollar aircraft to bozos that have no clue how they work or the aerodynamics of flight? :confused: :rolleyes: In real life pilots attend academics, which expose them to the operating systems on the aircraft from hydraulics, fuel, electrics, fire control, radar, pneumatics, the normal and emergency operations of each system. Then, pilots go to the hangar and look over each of the systems and are allowed to crawl over their aircraft to see what each of the systems look like with the access/inspection panels and engines out of their bays. This doesn't even go into the hours spent on aerodynamics which started in UPT and continued throughout each aircraft type flown. While this particular A-10 pilot liked a console game better than LOMAC, you've got to ask yourself a question. Who you going to believe, a real A-10 pilot or some joe hamfist who's been flying sims for his entire life. Next you've got to ask the Hog driver what he was trying to get out of the experience. Did he want to have some fun "blowin' up stuff" and not be bothered by switchology, or was he looking for some time flying with a group of people using tactics he was used to flying (and all the bureaucracy inherent in that mess)? If it's the former, then the console is going to win every time. BTW, why do you think there's some military pilots who enjoy LOMAC over F4? We don't all enjoy flipping every switch in the cockpit to get airborne and wreak some havoc. I enjoy flying with likeminded individuals who are more into the tactics and flight dynamics over the checklists and switchology. My plane of choice is the Eagle, and while it still doesn't model the real one in true fidelity, it still gives me some of the feelings I had flying in the real one. So, don't be all bent out of shape because a Hog driver (most need their head examined anyway :p ) dissed your sim. Get enjoyment where you can and if you're one of those people who need reassurance, then find another Hog driver who likes LOMAC. With all it's idiosyncracies and inaccuracies, I still like LOMAC over F4 because of the feeling of flight, it's ability to allow me to fly fingertip realistically, and its ability to allow me to SOMETIMES use appropriate real world tactics, on occasion, (some restrictions may apply, consult your lawyer for details) ;)

Ok, "decently functional" huh? It's like saying the LOMAC F-15 is just like the real one - just like the F-22 is just like a piper cub with an AK-47, but that's an exaggeration to make a point. If I can employ the F-15 just like i would if I jumped into the real thing and flew a 4-ship, using the same tactics, and came out successful then I'd agree. However "decently functional" is hardly acceptable. While I will still continue to fly the F-15 and use the slammer in online combat, despite the faults inherent in the Eagle and the continued deterioration of its radar systems and it's ability to perform to its historic strengths -which are diminishing rapidly with each patch, eventually I'll move on. But until then, I'll still be one of your statistics who haven't realized that flying the Eagle is futile. I can only hope that it's lack of data link, which allow adversaries to stab it in the back, or the fact that I can get better kills from firing maddogs rather than providing guidance to the missile until it can go active, thus negating it's strength in maintaining it's adversaries at arms length - i must invite people into the phonebooth to fight, where I get to practice my body position for ejection and PLF as i hit the ground in the silk elevator. I'd like the F-15, Su-27, MiG-29 become more capable to their inherent strengths, so that they may be utilized the way a real pilot would employ their weapons. Sorry, but "decently functional" = "it's good enough for you" and then why should ED improve on anything within the sim; It's all decently functional, right?

What irks me even more is that when the track drops off radar, the "ghost" appears at the first place locked up & not at the last place it was on the radar when it dropped the contact. This does not conform to the real thing in any way. The "ghost" should be in the last known position the radar painted the contact when it dropped off radar. In the immortal words of Prince Charles, "If you're gonna pork something, by George, let's do it royally!"

another consideration (not in LOMAC) is that the air near the inlets stagnates which increases the susceptibility of the engines to stagnation (a decrease in RPM and increase in FTIT to 1000C.) or compressor stall and resultant flameout. As previously stated, this is one reason why jets usually don't do hammerheads, and perform wingovers instead. With regards to departure, the real F-15 risk for departure increases with asymmetric load greater than 5,000lbs and AOA greater than 30 units.