HubMan

I was not 100% sure myself, thanks for checking it out :) By the way Teka Teka made a very nice tutorial about how using this tool, you can find it on its web site Beyond Visual Range Hub.

Nice work :) I have a quick question by the way, did Ezor or Walmis build the updatecfg.exe utility ? I thought Walmis developped it and Ezor used it in its skin packs :) Hub.

At least something realistic in the mess of the ECM modelization in Lockon : french jammers are killers :P :pilotfly: Hub. PS : don't flame me : just kidding ;) Mirage 2000 in the game are not even fitted with jammers :D

+1 It happenes to me as well from time to time against the AI. :) By the way, some real life radar used by fighters suffer the same limitation : tracking a target implies that they use phase monopulse (all pulses sent in the same direction) or amplitude monopulse technics (pulses sent with a slight angular / directionnal difference). Amplitude monopulse radar will have a maximum tracking range inferior to their maximum detection range, because the beams are not exactly pointed forward, but slightly on the side, and thus, the emitted power is not as high as in the case of a phase monopulse radar where all the beams overlap and where tracking range is rougly equal to detection range :) Sorry for my english and trying to explain shortly things that would perharps require a longer post :) Hub. PS : thanks Ice for removing the externals : trying to sneak in on A/G mission was impossible, and externals were really giving to much cues on the aicraft type / payload you were to fight against :)

Loved it ! Give me more ! :thumbup: Hub.

Very, very good ! Thanks a lot Bug ! :D Ciao. HubMan.

Hi D-Scythe, :) Sorry to interrupt you but I have a (quick) question connected to this remark : could you confirm that the ranges provided in the russian HUD for a missile shot, are only based on the altitude of the shooter ie, that the real altitude of the target is not used and always considered to be the same than the altitude of the shooter ? :) Thanks for your answer and sorry for the interruption. Ciao :) HubMan. PS : We ran a couple of tests (different altitudes for the shooter/target within a fixed distance) a while ago with another member of the french C6 forum and reached this conclusion... PPS : It definitly looks like a direct implementation of the thumb rule : "2 times the missile range for 20 000ft of altitude" :)

Hi, :) You are right MBot. By "modern" standards, the AIM-7E was a piece of junk . A "kill" in CAC traning was granted to a shooter below 10,000ft, only when the background was a deep blue sky... Until the mid seventies and the AIM-7F (used for the development of Aspide and Skyflash missiles) the Sparrow could only be used only very specific conditions ie it's firing envelop envelop was very small, and unknown to most of the pilots (no HUD with min/max range at this time = most of the shots outside the proper parameters = missed shots) :) Ciao :) Hub.

You should probably try to get some gunzo time with Paploo though. He is very willing to help / teach people, even though he can't help himself and usually spanks you to death in the process :) Flying 30min against him was the best way to realize that : - I suck ;) - it's not because you can easily beat the AI that you can pretend to do the same to human players. ;) - a guns only environment is a lot different from a missile environment where you use your gun. The keys to survival are quite different... :) - flying against the AI (99% of the time in my case) makes you use tactics that just won't work against a human player (merge in 1 circle slow fight is mostly useless...) - human people use tactics that the AI will never use... tactics that are far more efficient by the way... - if you want to progress really fast while having a good time (your ego will suffer, but who cares ? ;) ) get in touch with him :) My two cents... Hub. PS : I made a short crappy video a while ago about a quick gunzo between a Su-27 and a M2000. If you wish, you can get it on google video here or on Patricks Aviation there... :)

Hi GGTharos, :) Thanks for your answer. I'm afraid I was not rigorous enough in my first post. If you don't mind and still have the strength to follow this subject, I would like to clarify some points (by the way, my apologizes to Pilotasso for resurrecting the Evil Dead Thread :) ) Here we go : roughly said, a typical fighter radar for the lomac historical period can operate in : - "search"/scan mode where it scans a large volume of airspace to detect an aircraft using Pulse technology and/or Doppler technology. - "track"/lock mode, where the monopulse technic (phase or amplitude) is generally used to determine the target position as accuratly as possible. Those two behaviors are quite different, a SAM site will use different physical radars or even vehicules for each of it, but considered that a fighter does not have that much room to spare, the same antenna and as much common components as possible are used. Anyway my point is : - a modern aircraft radar in -track- mode is very difficult to be deceived, chaffs are almost useless and a beam manoeuver will usually be inefficient (Shaw wrote in its "Fighter Combat" page 353 that chaffs are quite efficient while used on the beam against a Doppler radar equipped opponent, but the book is getting quite outdated on some technical points...) - a radar in "search"/scan mode can be fooled with less difficulties : chaffs and beam can work etc... - missiles radar are of the -track- type. Despite being less efficient / powerfull than an aircraft radar they do not lose a lock easily. Lomac is a game. I'm afraid the team modeled the tracking radars guiding the Fox 3 (and the Fox 1...) almost the same way than the search radars : that's not realistic, even though, to my opinion, it greatly improves the game play (the same way than the RWR's can detect in the game the launch of Fox 1 not using CW illumination ;) ). I agree. But my point was not to talk about ECCM in real life, but to share my idea about the way the tracking radars are implemented in the game : as if they were hybrids based on the "search" radar model and using a strictly defined look-up (strictly pulse mode => chaff mostly efficient on the front/rear) / look-down (strictly doppler mode => chaff mostly efficient on the beam, ) algorithm. :) I hope I was clearer this time :) No :) The first historical seekers were quite prone to lock anything because the technology available at this time only made possible to process IR signal with a wavelength higher than 2.5 microns, (lot of background clutter and high temperature needed for the IR source (tailpipe) in this band) Most of the missile have been able to use for a while the 4 microns band ( emitted by the airframe located around the tailpipe and the exhaust gaz a bit cooled down). Considered the fact that the sun reflection on the clouds / water / ground is quite limited in this band, that there are not much propagation issues and the amount of optical and electronical filtering available in the seeker of a Fox 2 (not talking about IIR...), you should not expect such a missile to guide too easily on the clutter. In contrary to what has been said, Fox 2 -can- filter out noise, but less efficiently than radars using doppler filtering... (a truck burning on the battlefield is a good example...). If Fox 2 and maddog seems a strange association in the same sentence, it's probably due to the fact that : - most of the Fox 2 are short range missiles (makes a "maddog" quite stupid : due to the fact that the kinetic range doesn't exceed that much the detection range). - most of the Fox 2 doesn't have an inertial guidance system : that means that they just cannot go "straight" on a defined bearing/altitude by themselves. - even though the Fox 2 can reject clutter, they will probably have the tendancy to lock by themselves some heat source on the ground while looking down toward the Earth. - the seeker is very "sensible" and there would be a real need to define a higher "threshold" at which the missile should lock onto a supposed target while fired in Maddog. This level shoud definitly be far higher than the one used for "normal" use (IR seekers still tend to be able to lock onto a lot of things that are in no way related to a flying aircraft... :)) - the detection range being quite "short", it gives not that much time to the missile to correct its course (and a hard manoeuver means a lot of energy wasted). - the risks of fratricid Anyway, achieving a kill with a "maddoged" R27ET should be possible but should require far more luck and "Kentucky Windage" than what required right now and should in all cases be more considered as a low pk dirty trick / last ditch manoeuver than a standard method ... :) Depends on the aircraft (full A/F, aspect...), depends on the heat source :) Ciao :) Hub. PS : thanks Crusty ;) :) PS : Sorry Pilotasso, but it seems that "Ze kreature ize alife" ;) :)

Hi all, :) I'm a frequent reader of lockon.ru, but I never had the opportunity to post here... At least until I found this 36 pages thread (I read them all ;) ) and some excellent posts that really pushed me to post the following questions / remarks. :) 1. About the Chaff being more effective on a head / tail aspect than on the beam : does it only happen when the radar of the Fox 3 is in look-up mode or does it occur in look-down as well ? As already said : - Chaff rejection is mostly based on Doppler filtering. Thus, a radar in Doppler mode can reject chaffs quite easily in head / tail aspect because chaffs slow down quite fast after being ejected (large radial speed difference => consequent difference in the Dopppler shifts => easy filtering) but with more difficulties on a beam aspect (close radial speeds => small difference in the Doppler shift => difficult filtering) - but chaff rejection is also dependent on the "geometry" (projection) : from the radar point of view, an aircraft seen on the beam will "move" away pretty fast from the cloud of chaffs (different blobs) and can be rapidly reacquired (if non manoeuvring...), by having the radar doing the same correction / interpolating the target trajectory as before. On the other hand, if the target is on a head/tail aspect, the aircraft will appear for a short while "over"/"through" the cloud of chaffs, and that will make the job of a non-doppler radar more complicated. Fighters radars tend not to use doppler filtering in -search- mode while looking up (not really needed due to not much ground clutter + no vulnerability to "beam"/"doppler notch manoeuver" + no detection / tracking range decrease). Under these conditions, a radar could be more easily fooled by chaffs on a head / tail aspect than of the beam. While looking down, it is the other way around : a search radar would be in "Doppler" mode and would be more easily deceived by a target using chaffs while on a beam than head/tail aspect. A modern radar in "track" mode is behaving quite differently than in "search" mode : the chaff efficiency is -very- low, and the monopulse seeker of the AMRAAM is very unlikely to get fooled easily by that kind of counter measures. I was wondering if ED wouldn't have worked on the "gameplay" by modeling the airborne "tracking" radars (and probably the behavior of SARH seekers) the same way than basic "search" radars ? About the inertial guidance of the R27-TE : couldn'it be related to the way the missile is fired ? Most of the Fox 2 are fired from a "rail" launcher : there is no "separation" / or really "ejection" from the aircraft. But in the case of the R27-TE, the missile has to "clear" itself from the aircraft it's not a dogfight missile, it behaves like a heavy Fox 1. Couldn't the inertial guidance be used for this purpose : move the missile far away (low) enough from the firing aircraft to make sure it doesn't collide after igniting its engine ? About the seeker acquisition when the R27-TE is fired in "Mad Dog" I think that an AIM-9 Sidewinder in uncaged mode is moving its seeker around, and that Lockon is only modeling the "boresight" mode where the seeker is not moving at all. I'm wondering if it couldn't be the same with the R27-TE and the other russian Fox 2 : fire it in Mad Dog and it will acquire the first IR source that looks like a plane engine exhaust (gaz) within a certain angular limit, not determined by the seeker "proper" field of view (which is very small), but by a larger cone determined by the scan rate of the seeker gyroscope etc... Hope it helps :) Ciao :) Hub. PS : sorry for my english, it's not my mother language :)