Kula66

Good to see you back SK! Perhaps best not call it a patch then ... rather LO:Ultimate edition - WAFMs! I've bitched about missile FM more than most, however I think ED tried to do a good job in LO, it just got broken when they tried to tweak it. Plus, people found the flaws and use those to their advantage. If we want them to invest time it has to make business sense to ED. How about trialling the WAFM system for DCS in an upgrade to LO in a years time? But I guess the market would be limited to a few hundred copies to a small number of people like us. No mass market appeal - I can't see 'Please buy it daddy, it'll make missiles work realistically!' I just don't feel like waiting 5 years to play A2A NATO v Russia again online!! Stalking dumb AI vehicles with few infantly on a relatively poor terrain model in a helicopter just doesn't do it for me. Hit the first vehcile in a column and the rest are like fish in a barrel! .... IMHO, helicopters fit best into a land sim like SteelBeasts with a rich enviroment, good vehicle AI and uber scenario designer - they are basically land vehicles and you must have a super detailed land environment for them to fly over.

True ... but this whole forum is just chat ... I'm not daft enough to think it'll make any difference!

ED are a business - they will get no revenue from a patch and have commitments elsewere - DCS. So would you pay 20 $/£/Euro for a patch that just fixed A2A missiles, say 4months from now - seekers and WAFM?

In RL if you've let a Mig-29 get to 10miles then you've really screwed up!

Thats what TWS was invented for! It used to work just fine ...

The higher you fly the more you have to look down, the narrower the 'cone' is and manually keeping track of multiple targets becomes impossible. 1 is easy, but TWS is supposed to offer multi-target ability - this is what was borked in the last patch. AMRAAM was supposed to be tweaked in the last patch ... so I'll reserve judgement - if a patch is ever forthcoming.

The real life F-15 was ... the LO one has no real advantage - TWS is totally borked, no answer to the uber-ETs, AMRAAMs are dumb, ECM is screwed and abused, low-flyers are immune, weapon FMs are arcady! Looks like I'll be waiting 6 years for EDs next NATO fighter to play A2A online ...

Fantastic!

O'Reilly do a book 'Physics for Game developers' ... looking at that you need pretty good maths too!

Kuky, I don't see anyone doing a campaign engine like Falcon 4 ... I seem to remember it bankrupted the developers! In some ways I'm quite bouyed by EDs announcement - as you say, it will give us high levels of detail, but for me having to wait 9 months for each of Ka-50, AH-64, A-10, Su-25, Russian fighter1 and finally Western fighter, before I can play A2A again is very frustrating. Assuming 9 months slips to 1 year thats 5-6 YEARS away at the earliest!

If they are only going to introduce a/c one at a time, with 9 months (lets say 18 months in reality) between ... when the first fast jet is introduced it will only have helicopters and A-10s to shoot at - god that will be fun :( Surely you have to introduce them in pairs! Are we all going to fly on-line on the same side just plinking the dumb AI? Or all with the same a/c on both sides? Please - half the fun of LO is the different a/c and their capabilities. I still fly the crippled F-15 and fly against hordes of Migs/SUs ... fire-off my dumb AMRAAMs and then back to base for a reload!

I'm 100% with you GOYA. Plus do something about the arcady implementation of jamming ... I guess fixing missiles would mean including decent HOJ modelling.

So when are we going to see realsitic A2A missiles?

Is the 50% increase in range caused by a 50% increase in volume? If not then your simple comparision of the 77 is bigger therefore has longer range is not valid ... there are obviously other factors involved. A bigger missile will have more drag and therefore loose energy quicker A heavier, bigger missile will burn more energy to change course. Those potato mashers will have more drag. The electonics package will take up more of the missile, therefore less for fuel etc etc The AMRAAM could be smaller, carry less fuel and yet due to other factors (which me or anyone less using UC info) can't know! One thing we do know the UASF, with billions of $$$ of budget is happy with it (not an organisation that is know to scrimp on equipment) ... sure they would like something better, but its good enough for purpose. PS> Sorry, this isn't an attack on you ... just the info isn't available.

Sorry, Yoda, but real tactics don't work ... real tactics are F-15s at 35-40k' flying in line clearing the skys with their superior radar in TWS and 120s. TWS is broken, keeping a lock from that height on multiple targets is nearly impossible and 120s go stupid in look-down mode ... I've recorded it and played it back many times in disbelief. Also, a shot from 1000' v a target at 40k' have the same range either way is just arcadish ... sorry it completely negates RL tactics ..

cool_t, I've done the same, locked an enemy and had the missile guide to a friendly 20k' feet below me ... hence I don't play online any more ... just too frustrating - too much luck and too little skill. They used to work before the last patch - that completely narfed the 15/120. Perhaps TWS was over-modelled before, but to just rip out that modelling and replace it with nothing - not good. That patch was supposed to fix a load of stuff but for me was a big backwards step ... so when you hear the next patch will fix a load of stuff, don't get too optimistic, even if it ever appears.

I bought MS FS ... lasted about a week on my PC - very dull. I don't remember the clouds being anything great ...

* Different burning effects ... if you have a battlefield full of burning vehicles, all the balck smoke columns look the same! How about a bit of variety? Hight, colour, burn time .... * Weather - LO clouds are the best that i've seen in any sim ... but more types, colours etc * Airfield clutter ... * Turnulance * Comms ... much more like the simulator that can't be named. * Better ground mesh * More general clutter on the ground - LO is probably the best, but needs to improve ... walls, fences, hedges, ditches, tall grass, crags ... * Carrier landings - agreed. Oh and an F-18 as well * An AI ... rather than an AS! * AFM (sorry, it just had to be said ...) So nothing requiring too much development ...

The ET was designed with a specific scenario in mind ... you have a fleeing Tornado or F-111 on AB, 3 miles ahead. If you fire a 73, it hasn't got the legs and will miss. So, marry an IR seeker with a big motor that you already have in use ... I wish Western designers thought out of the box too! I thought the problem with LOAL for an IR seeker is the FOV is very narrow and you have to point the head at the target. This isn't a problem for the ER, its homing in on reflected energy and the active seeker weapons have a big FOV.

I thought the recent shoot of a MICA at a following aircraft were tests of the 2-way data-link ...

I thought both the Meteor and the MICA have 2-way data links. Is the 120D even flying in testing yet?

Now I would definately buy a flyable Harrier sim!

So cool_t, what you are saying is that there is so much broken its never going to get fixed. ED will not make any more money by fixing it and those of us who love A2A will have to look elsewhere .... yep, that was my conclusion. For me the last patch broke more than it fixed, so my hopes aren't high of its content let alone whether it will appear. ED is a company and has to make money - I'm sure they would all love to fix LO, but companies don't make money from patches! When was the last one? It ain't going to happen. Sooner or later something better will come along - from ED or someelse ...

But hacking the EXE/Process to change you plane .... that is very different!

Why is dumping fuel cheating? He runs the risk of running out of fuel during the fight and then loosing. The other side just has to keep him out of his six for a while longer and he dies - plus both sides can do it!