Rhen

SwingKid, You've GOTTA read the notes man! :book: I've got a physical product, so it's pretty easy for me to use a ruler to follow the lines with appropriate spacing to interpolate data for 5k and 7.5k. You must also take SOME amount of drag into account. I used a default 10 Drag index for the pylons still hanging off the aircraft. Just removing the turkey feathers makes the starting drag index 3.7, then add the pylons LAU-114s, etc. and you'll get somewhere around 8, so 10 should suffice. I double checked the values I got from the Dash-1, but feel free to recheck things. A second set of eyes is always a good thing.

Yo-Yo, Thanks for being opened-minded about changing "your baby" of all these years to reflect reality. You're willingness to change your opinion speaks volumes about ED and where you're heading. Thanks! @ Kula: Just to visually point out what "slightly" looks like Here's a graph. I just got around to plotting the data vs the Dash1: This is a chart of Distance (in NM) vs Altitude (Ft) comparing the Dash1 data (expected performance) vs LOMAC's F-15 at MIL power and 40,000Lbs, clean aircraft. The lines should mirror each other if the simulation meets expected Dash1 performance. It's a better way to show where the discrepancies lie. As you can see, performance begins to diverge at 10,000ft (+/-1500ft) and the LOMAC aircraft becomes quite underpowered. The other area of concern is below 5000ft. This area appears underpowered as well, which mirrors my qualitative analysis that in the pattern, the aircraft doesn't perform as it should either.

See Note 2

If you fly the appropriate profile, it takes about 28.8 - 31.4 sec to accelerate to 350KCAS in a MAX takeoff, and 58.5-59.3 sec in MIL, so the difference is negligible. However, I have no problems with that if you want to execute the timing from that point. I didn't necessarily say it was inaccurate. What I said was that you should not focus on it since it represents a median value for aircraft of all weights, so the closer you get to a median weight, the more accurate that value will be. Takeoff flaps are necessary because you become airborne at some point and have to retract the flaps, which might add to total drag at that point. Granted, this value might be negligable, but it's part of how the procedure is done. The Dash-1 tables are for takeoffs done using normal procedures. It allows you to become airborne at a slower speed, which will add to induced drag as well, since you're at a faster speed when using a flaps up takeoff. Yo-Yo: One of the inaccuracies about most western jet engines is that the RPM increases in afterburner, or needs to be 100% when this happens. Nevertheless, for my tests, I pushed the throttle forward until it was as far as it would go without causing the afterburner to light. Remember, my data is for a 40,000lb aircraft (not 39,000) which might explain why your time to 40,000ft is so low. Other possibilities are that it has to do with your technique, or what airspeed you're using to climb. Are you using TAS instead of KCAS? However, if I'm setting throttles too low, it still doesn't explain any discrepancy that's present in the data at and below 10,000ft.

SwingKid, I took a peek at your track and how you flew the comparison profile to 350KCAS. Some of what you're doing is a little off, which could affect the low altitude data you're trying to obtain - if a fair comparison with the Dash-1 is to be obtained. I'm interested in low altitude performance too, but from my experience, the LOMAC F-15 doesn't seem underpowered below 10K, at least between 5-12K. Below that, there seems to be some problem, but it might be just the low altitude portion of the flight model, or the precision of the data below 5000ft in the charts, at least with respect to MIL. I haven't done a quantitative analysis of MAX power, but it doesn't "feel" right - at least for high AOA/slow speed/max G flight.

I don't see how LOMAC even gets close to the Dash-1 in performance. It's off in it's climb capability in MIL power. This is a little experiment I've been running comparing the -1 to LOMAC's F-15 in a 40,000Lb aircraft, clean (except the unremovable pylons), standard day. Takeoff Procedure: YOU MUST USE FLAPS FOR TAKEOFF. Run Engines up to 80%, while holding brakes, release brakes, throttles to MIL, rotate @ 120KCAS to 10degrees, Gear/Flaps up when airborne, hold to capture 350KCAS in climb, maintain until M0.9, then climb @ M0.9. I've also included statistical analysis for the numbers. The flight was flown 5 times, averaged, and compared to the Dash-1 numbers, to include deviation. If the Dash-1 number falls within the 95% Confidence interval, then there's only a 1 in 20 chance of the number being out of that range (p<0.05) which would be a statistically significant deviation from the Dash-1. NOTES: 1. Time is from brake release to indicated altitude, Distance is from brake release, Fuel is from 350KCAS. 2. Fuel under Dash-1 is fuel from 350KCAS, fuel depicted below that includes, run-up, takeoff, and climb to 350KCAS, thus the apparent discrepancy. 3. If the Dash 1 number falls between the numbers, then there's no statistically significant difference between LOMAC and the Dash-1. If it doesn't... well then, obviously there's only a 1 in 20 chance that LOMAC is correct. Finally, the real F-15 is capable of reaching 45,000ft at 40,000 Lbs. The LOMAC F-15 is incapable of reaching this altitude in MIL power at M0.9. It reaches it's combat ceiling at 43,600ft and it's absolute ceiling at 44,250ft. Conclusion: To reject the null hypothesis that the LOMAC F-15 conforms to the F-15 Dash-1, The numbers derived from the Dash-1 should be between the numbers below the 95% Conf column. It does this at 25,000ft with respect to time to climb to this altitude. But as you can see, the LOMAC F-15 actually outperforms the Dash-1 below about 12,000ft then significantly slows/flattens it's climb profile. The slope rapidly decreases to nearly tangential at 45,000ft, which explains the large variations in leveloff time and distance. With respect to distance, the LOMAC F-15 flys a flatter slope than the Dash-1 says the F-15 flys, above 12,000ft. The numbers begin to diverge significantly enough to notice, then become quite large in it's variance from that expected from the Dash-1. This also conforms to the large variance in time to climb to the higher altitudes. With respect to fuel flow, the LOMAC F-15 appears to use less JP-8 than the real thing. The final conclusion is that the LOMAC F-15 at 40,000Lbs in MIL power does NOT conform to the Dash-1. It significantly underperforms the Dash-1 at moderate to high altitudes, and outperforms the F-15 at low to medium altitude. Finally, any errors in experimental technique are caused by two major areas. Pilot variations in manipulating the aircraft for the climb profile might cause small variations in time and distance to climb, expecially at the beginnning and end of the profile. Again, this is due to the underpowering of the LOMAC F-15 and the proximity of the combat, service, and absolute service ceiling of the LOMAC F-15 to 40,000 ft. Secondly, throttle setting could possibly be off and not fully in MIL power. Care was taken to maintain the closest throttle position without going into afterburner. The other major source of error is in reading the tables in the Dash-1. This error is significant because some parameters must be approximated, such as drag corrections, and approximating positions on the chart near the low altitude portion of the charts. Other sources of error are in assumptions about the atmospheric modeling of LOMAC. Is there an adiabatic lapse rate? Does it affect the engine thrust? How is engine thrust determined from altitude, speed, temperature? This experiment will be repeated with a 30,000Lb aircraft, and a 50,000Lb aircraft to determine if the same results are obtained. I wanted to include the track I flew, but it's too large since it ends at the absolute ceiling.

I think the ILSN guidance is taking you to the IAF (instrument approach fix) from which you can execute your ILS approach.

That's another problem with the LOMAC Eagle - avionics, as IguanaKing's said. Nevertheless, as long as we agree on an instrument - the HUD, let's stick with that. Once airborne, hit the "2" key and you'll get a mach readout on the HUD. Follow the climb profile per Dash 1. The MIL thrust performance of the Eagle is indeed weak.

SwingKid, I don't mean to get personal with you... If you derived that from my posts, I sincerely apologize. We're both on the same team here - in that we think there's something wrong with the performance of the aircraft in LOMAC. We're both trying to get to the same point - a fix. We're just arguing about the 'what's' and 'why's' of the matter. Only hope the two of us, in explaining the matter of poor performance with respect to the real aircraft (or in the case of the Fulcrum - its abuse of steroids) can hopefully convince Yo-Yo to address our concerns. Although the FM for anything flyable except the frog is simplified, I still enjoy flying LOMAC for its ability to give me the "feel" of flight. Where the SFM fails to convince me is at either end of it's spectrum. The high AOA, low speed envelope, and the high-speed, low AOA portions, just lose that ability to convince me that I'm flying something - let alone an Eagle. While I'd much rather have an AFM for all flyables, I'd be happy if those two realms, but even more importantly, the MIL power aspect and drag indices are addressed. Bump up the thrust here (the simple fix) and it would approximate an Eagle more readily than it already does. People who tend to fly around in MAX all the time and then tell me that the FM is appropriate aren't looking at the entire picture. I've got the feeling the drag is a problem.... Regardless of the matter and Yo-Yo's need to quantify things, when stuff's hanging off the jet the turn performance is a bit off. In my experience corner velocity in the LOMAC Eagle appears higher than the real thing, at least to get the same turn for the same airspeed loss. That's all I'll say without making Yo-Yo happy with quantifiable numbers. I'm hoping that you'll see that the Dash-1 is the way to go. It's what we use to flight plan, and attempt to determine what kind of time, fuel, distance we'll use up in a sortie - at least without using our "rule of thumbs." Regardless of whether I convince you of this or not, we can agree (hopefully) that the Eagle's performance appears less than "advertized" when it comes to demonstrated ability.

No, you're still not understanding that the straight line you're having so much trouble wrapping your mind around merely states that AT 5,000 FT and BELOW, the distance it takes to get to 5,000ft, between a HEAVY and LIGHT Eagle, is NEGLIGABLE. Let me state this in terms I've previously used - NEGLIGABLE = within accepted variations in pilot technique. The charts are based upon flight data, derived from the flight profile within the Dash 1, and compiled from several test pilots. :huh: Non-sequitur! I can do that too! (1) The 220 pushes out about 24k, which is a helluva lot of horsepower. (2) It's on the viper (f-16) (3) The other viper (dodge) has much less weight and horspower. (4) In a viper vs viper ground race, the viper will be marginally faster. :P (5) The Dodge can keep up with (or surpass) the LM in the first 1/2mi. (6) Therefore the STREAK Eagle is a better comparison with the LOMAC F-15 than the F-15 Dash 1. :megalol: :smilewink: In the first 1/2 mi or the first 5,000ft, WEIGHT'S NOT MUCH OF A FACTOR at sea level to 5,000 ft, and any variations in multiple data sets is within a standard deviation which can't be ruled out to being attributed to individual pilot technique. Perhaps this is what you might have logically concluded, had you been using someone elses cranium. :smilewink: :smartass: (3) The Dash-1 DOES INDEED represent actual REAL LIFE AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE AS LONG AS IT'S FLOWN USING THE DASH 1 PROCEDURE. (4) Therefore, there is a problem with how I flew the aircraft to derive the comparison data (did not conform to the Dash 1 climb technique), what Lock On is purporting the mass of the aircraft, the drag indices - to include ground friction, or engine thrust curve with respect to speed and altitude, or is using an inappropriately derived equation simulating this, or all the above. (Sorry Yo-Yo, no offense meant, merely arguing a point). Either that or I must revisit my first premise.... Mil power thrust can easily be determined by use of either the DASH 1 or reputable sources elsewhere. We spend MORE TIME in MIL than in MAX, so NO! MIL is VERY IMPORTANT also. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the data from the Dash 1 and the STREAK Eagle BOTH come from pilot flight data and LOGICAL extrapolations of that data?:(

The fastest I've ever been in level flight was M2.42 on an intercept. That's after dropping the centerline, with 4Slammers, and 4 Sidewinders. That's not the fastest I've ever been though...

I guess this wasn't enough for ya, a few posts back, huh? :doh: My emphasis added. All comparisons made from the LOFC Eagle to the F-15 Dash 1. You can say that your Eagle is modelled correctly, but take it from a guy with 2,500 hours in the jet - you're wrong. The charts say it as well. You can show me charts of your F-15 gliding into Mare Chronium on Mars to prove that it's got plenty of thrust in MIL, and I'll still tell you that you've modeled it incorrectly because it doesn't conform to the Dash 1, which you have in your posession. The F-15 is great to fly between 30,000ft & 40,000ft, but your F-15 is a nightmare. It's behind the power curve in any power setting other than MAX. There's no way I can lock up a MiG-29 flying at 5,000ft at 60+NM, at 35,000ft, at M0.9, and accelerate to M1.5 and fire a slammer and kill it at, oh, let's say greater than 20NM. Now that's realistic. Swingkid: The difference between a 40,000Lb & 50,000Lb Eagle when coming off the runway to 350 is still pretty negligable - how can I put this - as long as you use the Dash ONE climb profile. Now, if you want to take a 40,000Lb Eagle, hold it on the deck until 500KCAS and then pull a 4g climb straight up and compare that to a 50,000Lb Eagle doing the same, then YES there will be major differences in altitude and airspeed after 30 sec.

Don't get caught up in that stuff. Like I've said in a previous post. The chart is appropriate after getting to 350KCAS. Don't worry about 0.4NM and 4 seconds (not 18 ). What's that in the immense scheme of things? That table starts at 350KCAS and airborne in MAX. This would take care of tire drag, induced drag, etc. I've also said that the acceleration to 350 isn't represented on the chart. The 1NM burner, and 2NM MIL thing just represents a median weight Eagle that accelerates to 350. Wadaya gonna do? The difference is pretty negligible and is less than the variations in pilot technique in the climb to altitude - especially if doing a formation takeoff. Next?

Guess I gotta give others some rep more often, 'cause I can't give it to ya even though you deserve it. I fly LOMAC & not Falcon - heresy, but I'd like the missiles and radar pulled out of Falcon and put into LOMAC. It would make me happier. I could care less about the switches though, they can keep those.:noexpression:

When employing a Sidewinder IRL, we lock the target, with the seeker slaved, then uncage the seeker head to see if the missile's tracking the bandit. If the bandit pops flares, we can watch the behavior of the seeker and either fire, or not. If the seeker gets spoofed, we can recage the seeker and wait or go guns. When firing any missile, we evaluate it's flight path, whether the motor lights off, or if it even comes off the rails - there have been instances of hung A-A missiles.

Ok, let me try to explain this again, in a way that even a PhD can understand :P . Those charts are based on only ONE WAY of flying. The way that those charts work is by using the climb methodology of the Dash 1. It should IN NO WAY be misconstrued to be applicable to a climb profile differing from the Dash 1 profile, like, shall we say, a viking climbout or a STREAK Eagle climbout. The Dash 1 method of climbout is to get to 350KCAS in 1NM from brake release (if using MAX), or 2NM (if using MIL). It does NOT pertain to a climbout that starts at GREATER than 350KCAS or a pitch attitude greater than that to hold 350KCAS in MAX. Like I've said before, I can make the LOMAC Eagle beat these charts too, but I'm NOT following the -1 climbout methodology, I'm following some other type. Now when you say that the -1 is INcorrect, you're just plain wrong IF it pertains to the performance of the F-15 when using the -1 climb techniques. :book: Now, I'll totally agree with you that the -1 Climb charts are INcapable of describing the time/fuel/distance of a viking climbout or a STREAK Eagle climb profile. It can't. The -1 wasn't designed to show you numbers for that because we don't fly climbouts that way on a day-to-day basis. We usually fly the -1 climb profile. That's why I've always wondered HOW you guys are using these charts. These charts were all based on flight performance using a specific technique. Now if you model the mass appropriately, drag appropriately, the engine thrust that follows a very flat parabolic curve with respect to velocity vs engine thrust available, and a very flat (linear might actually work) curve (opposite the previous curve) representing altitude vs engine thrust, then you'll satisfy my desire for the aircraft to actually meet the -1 performance benchmarks, and your desire to accelerate straight up near sea level. Again, we all agree something's wrong here. We're arguing about where to find the answers and the metrics to measure where and how it's wrong. You're privy to more about the LOMAC F-15 than I, so perhaps we could work together to find the real answer. :)

You must spread more rep before giving it to...:megalol:

This is extremely apparent at MIL power. If I had to fly the Eagle in afterburner (not full AB) as much as I had to fly the LOMAC F-15, just to approximate performance in MIL power... Regardless what SwingKid says :P about comparing the streak to the combat Eagle, it's not a real comparison. The comparisons can be made against the Dash 1 and the performance capabilities it produces. The more I fly the LOMAC Eagle at the edge of the high/low airspeed and high AOA envelope, I see that it's not the Eagle but some other aircraft. If the LBF thrust at SL is incorrect for the LOMAC Eagle in comparison with the real thing, then why did it leave beta like that? It's common knowledge what the PW-100 and the PW-220 produce . . . whatever you guys are trying to model. Drag shouldn't be hard to establish either, if you have a copy of the F-15A-1. There's plenty of methods to extrapolate for each weapon, pylon, and tank. The mass - weight of the aircraft is a known quantity as well. Now, this might be heresy, since I'd like a model that conforms to reality - BUT! it's not necessary to model the thrust exactly - it can be off, by as much as 12% and still produce something that behaves like the real Eagle, if the other numbers are also off by roughly 12%. Yo-Yo has established that the LOMAC F-15 behaves closely to the dash 1 climb schedule using the appropriate techniques, and MAX AB. But he hasn't established that it conforms to the dash 1 in any way in any other power setting - MIL power. The combat ceiling, level flight, and sustained level turn performance are off. What we all agree upon is the fact that there's indeed something amiss here. I'm sure this also applies to your favorite Russian aircraft as well, if these anomolies in aircraft behavior affect the Eagle. The most important thing is to eventually fix this by reevaluating the engine data - whether it's tabular or whatever, the drag coefficients, or aircraft mass with respect to force to produce an appropriate acceleration. Who ya gonna believe, a pencil-necked geek with a slide rule and streak Eagle charts, or an Eagle driver and his dash 1 :P :megalol: :smartass: :D

The sale of F-22s to ANY country is prohibited by law. Congress must pass a law allowing sales to foreign countries, and they haven't, so far.

I had problems with aircraft flopping around like fish out of water when flying close formation and BFM with clients, but no problems offline, and tracked it down to a firewall thing. If you have window firewall or an internet security program running, make sure LOMAC can get through. This solved my problem.

Howdy Yo-Yo, Thanks for showing up and answering questions. I've always wondered how you were using the time to climb charts to determine your flight envelope regarding the Eagle. I must again point out that the charts are designed to use the T.O. (technical order - dash one) procedure for climb. This would be the following: For all takeoffs: Line up on runway configured with flaps down. Set brakes and run engines up to 80%. Release brakes/start timing and smoothly set takeoff power... For afterburner takeoffs & Climbouts: Set max, at 120KCAS, move stick to 1/2 stick travel and rotate to 10degrees at nosewheel liftoff speed. Hold 10 degrees until positive rate of climb (VVI and altitude increasing), raise gear & flaps. Maintain 350KCAS. Pitch as required to maintain 350 until M0.95, then maintain M0.95 or 40 degrees nose up until M0.95. Then maintain M0.95 until passing through desired altitude - to get time to climb to that altitude. For Mil power takeoffs & climbouts, use same procedure as above except set military power and maintain 350KCAS. Then maintain 350KCAS until M0.9. Maintain until passing desired altitude - to get time to climb to that altitude. Assumptions: 1) Takeoff and climbout technique conform to Dash 1 procedure. 2) Time to get to 350KCAS=30 sec. This is based on median time it takes for an F-15 to accelerate to 350 after takeoff. 3) Distance to get to 350KCAS=1NM for Burner takeoff, 2NM for Mil power takeoff. 4) You can mix/match - do an afterburner takeoff but a mil power climb to altitude. 5) For the charted times to be accurate, LOMAC must model the engine appropriately with respect to temperature and airspeed changes. That is: a) The initial conditions must be compensated for - or just takeoff from a sea level base. Otherwise you must subtract time and distance of starting altitude. For example a takeoff from a base at 1,000ft MSL would require subtracting 3-6 seconds depending on AB/MIL power takeoff. b) Standard day 59oF/15oC, 29.92mmHg/101.3kPa, with normal adiabatic lapse rate to altitude. Otherwise temperature corrections must be made. c) Engine behaves correctly in climbout method selected MIL/MAX power climb. What you've shown seems appropriate for a MAX power climb. I get close to the same numbers you do - within 6sec max. Distances also appear appropriate for the climb mode. HOWEVER, have you looked at the performance of the aircraft in MIL power? It's severely ANEMIC! The time to climb is SIGNIFICANTLY longer than it would be IRL (more than 1.5 times greater) to get to 40,000 than the real jet at 39,000Lbs. The distances are 1.5 times greater as well. The combat ceiling at MIL power is reached earlier as well. I would also like to point out that level flight acceleration at high altitude also appears off. Of course it's not quicker, it's quantitatively slower by 20%. This can be tested by taking a clean F-15 from M0.83 (to compensate for pylon drag) and accelerating a 39,000Lb Eagle at 40,000ft to M1.0, which should take about 25 sec, but actually takes 30. Where does the problem lie? Perhaps it's in engine modeling/thrust output vs time or just plain thrust output. Perhaps it's in modeling mass vs acceleration. Perhaps it's in the drag numbers. Perhaps it lies elsewhere. Regardless there appears to be something amiss here. While I respect your hard work and effort, saying the F-15 truly behaves the way it should is not quite correct, regardless of how it behaves in only one particular flight regime - MAX power climbs to altitude. I would also like to point out that I can make the aircraft climb faster or slower, by varying climb technique. This is why it's a non-sequitur to believe that comparing the Strike Eagle to the vanilla Eagle will produce a logical correlation. It's essentially comparing two different aircraft with the same airfoil. The truth about modeling the Eagle, as you said, lies within the Dash 1 charts not in comparisons with the Strike Eagle. Implementing ALL of the aerodynamic properties within every one of the charts will simulate an Eagle better than taking one or two separately.

I've not voiced any opinion on threads addressing this issue for several reasons: 1) I don't want to give up any classified information 2) I needed to look around the internet for something I could say - if it's in the public domain, I can say it, but I can neither confirm or deny what I'm saying is true. :lol: 3) I don't fly online much except with the guys I like. DISCLAIMER: :noexpression: The following information is given out as my opinion on things that may or may not be true as I can neither confirm the plausibility, reliability or usage of any methods, tactics, techniques I'm mentioning. I merely point out that these techniques exist and are stated in websites carrying RELIABLE AND ACCURATE information on any topics discussed. These topics and OPINIONS do not necessarily reflect the views of the USAF or anyone currently or previously associated with them. They are solely my own views - take them or leave them, I don't give a rat's ass. Guess what? We use ECM blinking! :huh: Now I'm not a noob when it comes to ACBT, as some of you know. So you may wonder why I use it. Well let's get something straight first. I'm not talking about a 3,000 Hz blinker who does this to become invisible in LOMAC. I'm talking about using ECM to deny lock, break lock, or trash a missile solution. There's several types of ECM techniques, and the ones who've taken the time to actually do some research FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES might have heard of the following techniques for protection jammers: Blinking Noise Continuous Noise Doppler Noise Spot Noise False Target(s) Generator Multiple Frequency Repeater Range Gate Stealer Repeater Countdown Blink Stretched Pulse Velocity Gate Stealer Vertical Polarization Terrain Bounce... and many, MANY more techniques including those generated by aircraft in formation blinking their jammers in an asynchronous (not as effective) to syncronous (more effective) manner. Amazingly enough, as you can see, BLINKING is a technique used. Now it doesn't really matter what the little black box is doing inside your plane or on your pylon. The more important thing is that it does what it's supposed to do. IRL these techniques are used to, as I've said, to deny lock, break lock, or trash a missile solution. Now there's a problem with it as it relates to LOMAC. It's extremely effective, and doesn't reflect the ECCM capabilities of the radars on the launching platform or within the missile(s). Nevertheless it forces behaviors that are effective for training and usage of REAL LIFE tactics. As we all know, the Pk of missiles in LOMAC SUCK compared to their real life counterparts. At least for certain missiles. For others, they're overly optimistic (that, believe it or not, I don't really mind, as I'll point out). If all the missiles were slightly overmodelled, then I'd be a happy camper. Why? Because IRL we respect the hell outa any missile guiding on my priceless ass and the jet I'm flying. We defend against the missile BECAUSE THAT'S THE IMMEDIATE THREAT! We lose that fight & it doesn't matter where the launcing aircraft, his/her wingman, or the ground is at the moment we're converted from a human being to a cloud of blood, bones, and aircraft parts. A little more respect for the missiles is missing in any GAME, but is present in a sim. Now, what's the purpose of using this, what do you guys call it, a technique only used by noobs to get kills. It's to increase the Pk of the missile by getting closer to the adversary and decreasing all the "pole" distances. It causes the fight to be brought to the 12nm/22km distance where the missiles are more deadly, and provides for more realistic tactics usage and realistic missile defense, rather than using cranium-on chaff to trash missiles (chaff works best near the beam NOT nose-to-tail). What we've got in LOMAC is overmodeled countermeasures, undermodeled radars, and missiles. ECM blinking brings the fight closer and allows usage of realistic tactics. But my poor (insert aircraft here) doesn't have it! And you in your F-15 have a slammer! BOO HOO! Burn through in LOMAC is around 12nm/22km so ECM blinking in LOMAC provides no edge within these distances. If you're flying US aircraft you're at a decided disadvantage against an Alamo equipped adversary, as it's modeled in LOMAC anyway, since the ET can reach out and touch you without a launch warning from burn through distances, and the ER in LOMAC is an "arguably" better missile than the Sparrow. That leaves the bite off on chaff Adder and Slammer - not much of a threat to you - so called - expert fighter pilots whining about ECM blinking at ranges greater than 12nm/22km. Personally, I hope more potential adversary countries use LOMAC as their method of training. Why? Because you get a FALSE sense that missiles are weak, countermeasures are strong, and there's nothing in between. Real life, Alice, isn't found through the looking glass of LOMAC. If they (adversary air forces) get the above ideas, then when they try to convert these paradigms to the real world of missiles that hit, and countermeasures that aren't always successful, they'll have to suffer for it. Nothing can simulate real life, but real life. Things, however can be modeled closer to real life by forcing you to behave the way you would IRL, using RL tactics, missile evasion techniques, and weapons employment - along with a healthy respect for the guy who fires a missile at you. While the ECM blinking thing, like any (ok I'll use it here) PC simulation of RL isn't perfect, it suits a need, approximates a technique used IRL, and forces RL tactics. The thing that would make it better is modeling of ECCM - both missile and fire control radar - thus decreasing its effectiveness. Just my opinion, thanks for listening :noexpression:

That's not completely true. There's no external pressure on FO to release early with major bugs, unlike the pressure put on ED to release what they had, by Ubisoft. The developers in FO are all people who have day jobs that pay the bills. They won't see a penny until after it's released. Another point: While the first release will be a "trainer Ops" modeling UPT and IFF, the F-16 will shortly follow and be free if you've got the initial release of FO. Modeling the a training environment is tougher than modeling combat. Just think of the poor AI you've already experienced in many sims trying to act as an instructor. :megalol: The things you will learn! Personally, I'd be surprised if it didn't come by the end of this year/beginning of next.

DAMN! :( And I was just getting good at the art of shooting down inbound missiles with a heater... :smilewink: It's realistic, isn't it??? :megalol:

IT'S A GAME! Those people who understand reality and it's differences with lomac will always classify this as a game & not a sim when it pertains to air combat. Keep telling the kids that there's nothing wrong with lomac, it's your tactics that need adjustment. Poor missile logic, and radar modeling that's a mere shadow of proper function will skew tactics far distant from real life. Any argument that says in one breath that "lomac gets it right" then ends with "WTF are you complaining about, just fly this way instead & you'll still get the same result" just reinforces that this simulates nothing. Learning tactics that only the stupid (IRL) would try and then translating that to RL or a SIM that models RL closer than lomac will get you virtually killed. If the game forced us to utilize RL tactics, then it wouldn't be a game, now would it?