169th_DedCat
-
Posts
209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by 169th_DedCat
-
-
This may have been mentioned before, but I didn't it see when I had a quick look just now.
When the host records a mission track in multiplayer there are a few anomalies that seem to crop up. One is that the player list/score window does not track any hits or losses, two is that in the playback only the host's weapons appear on the rails, and three the mission log on the host appears to be missing a lot of information (that last one may be a secondary effect of some other bug, I'm not sure as it doesn't seem to reliably occur).
-
It doesn't strike me as being too much trouble to have this feature added to the cockpit systems, but it is probably a little late for 1.1.
My squad doesn't navigate by flying directly to waypoints alone, it would be nice if we could manually adjust the CDI needle on the HSI to aid in navigation rather than it just using the pre-set waypoint CDI course bearings. If the clickable cockpit is ever modeled, it may be as simple as clicking on the course knob on the HSI to have it adjust clockwise in 5 degree increments.
Not a feature that would be used by all, but one that would be very handy to some.
-
Wow coldcrew... looks like your jammer pod is overloading and broadcasting signals that are interfering with your visual cortex! I'd turn that thing off and have the engineers take a look less you give yourself un-repairable brain damage.
-
You may be right Brit about the error not existing for all SAM types, but I think it's more than just the Osa and it's support vehicle. I have just recently played a multiplayer mission where I observed a F-16 SEAD striking what I remember being a Kub SAM site--it definately wasn't an Osa anyway--one radar vehicle and many launch vehicles. HARMs were used against the radar and each of the launchers. Perhaps the error was due to something the mission creator had done when assigning those targets to the Falcons, but I think I remember the Falcon SEAD in the first A-10 campaign mission doing something similar to this against another Kub-like SAM site (maybe it was an Osa in that case, I'll have to double check).
-
I've noticed that AI SEAD aircraft, such as the F-16 Falcon, will employ their HARMs against both SAM radars and their support vehicles (launchers, reload vehicles, command vehicles, etc.), none of which transmit any radar signals. AI HARMs will track and destroy these vehicles as well as they do any transmitting radar.
This isn't a huge issue, since it's purely an AI one, but it is still unrealistic.
IRL smart SAM operators will switch their radar off if they detect they are under SEAD attack. It would add some interesting depth to see SAMs and AAA in LOMAC doing this against the Frogfoot. It would diminish the magic-bullet aspect of anti-radiation missiles in the game currently.
-
I had a photo I grabbed off of a site on the net about a month ago of a remotely operated Huey helo catching a tank HEAT round in the face. It was a devastating photo at the point of impact. I'll see if I can't re-locate it and post a link here.
LOMAC may have over modeled the accuracy of a tank engaging a helo with the main gun, but it isn't completely unrealistic.
I think I remember the game M1A2 Tank Platoon II having a special round, probably an unshaped charge, for engaging airborne targets.
-
I would have thought that if you'd let get to 15miles, then you'd made a mistake!
Slammers won't intercept a target beyond that range unless it cooperates, which a number of LOMAC pilots will readily do in the hopes they can spam the attacker before, or even after, they get hit. What a strange war it would be if real pilots were so suicidal... but I guess there is no recover option IRL.
Of course the other problem with flying high in your Eagle with your radar on ... you attract bogies like flies on s..t!Flying around with your radar off in a BVR fight is like flying a WWII prop with your eyes closed. If you're getting spiked by enemy airborne threats there is no sense in turning your own radar off. Playing like an ostrich doesn't work--the enemy can still see you with your head in the sand. Stay nose hot and learn how to work your radar to its full abilities. When used properly, the F-15 will always detect the enemy before they detect it.
Also, you guys suggest that contrails can be ignored ... the biggest problem in ACM is finding your opponent .... and contrails make that easy!If they can see you on radar, it doesn't matter if you are contrailing or not. Don't fear the vapour.
-
also I'm sure they had real f-15 pilots to comment on it during the development of this sim. so I think this thread isn't really needed.
When asking a real Eagle driver how their AMMRAMs work you're most likely to get a smirk and a smart ass response like "they work very well, thank you". The public isn't privy to a lot of the real detailed information behind modern weapon systems.
What simmers experience is a developer's best guess of weapons systems given the limited information that is available to them, that combined with the dynamics of the game code itself provide for very limited realism in true missile behaviour. Missile behaviour in general in LOMAC 1.02 is pretty scripted and predictable. It is not nearly as realistic as you blindly seem to take it to be. It could stand to be better (we'll see how 1.1 turns out), but it isn't awful either.
-
I wanted to reitterate the whole IFF in CAC with the F-15... or lack thereof.
I posted some ideas for this in the Ubi forums ages ago, I don't know if anyone in ED took notice though.
link to original post: ubi.com forums - Lock On: Modern Air Combat (Wish List) - IFF in TWS
-
I know that maddogged AIM-120s do not acquire anything past 20 nm
I doubt the AMMRAM has a powerful enough radar to detect anything at that range.
-
Here's another one for ya...
CHEAPSHOT:
1. (USAF) Active missile supported to HPRF active range but not MPRF.
2. (USN) Active missile not supported to active range.
I'd like to petition another brevity...
SPAMSHOT:
1. (LOMAC) Informative. Every active missile at any PRF active range.
-
That's all well and good Alfa. As I said in my first post, I wasn't claiming the Sunburn should act like the Harpoon. I'm using the dynamics of the Harpoon modeled in Jane's F/A-18 as an illustration to how similar such dynamics are completely lacking from the Sunburn in LOMAC. The missile doesn't do any of its own work in LOMAC. All the work is done by the fellow who put the target designation on the ship in the mission editor, and the missile simply flies towards it in the game.
Instead of the target diamond following the enemy ship around, perhaps it would be better if it was fixed on a point on the map where the ships were expected, and the missile actually did some work to locate them when it reached its acquisition range. This would perhaps be a better reflection of reality than the infallible and exact target diamond we have now. I suspect in reality, in the absence of such a pre-programmed target area, the missile could still employed by a Su-33 with a default or pre-programmed go-active-after-launch range and search area.
Any way you look at it, the behaviour of ASMs in LOMAC are rigid and completely scripted, IMHO it would be nice if they were not.
-
Actaully you could launch the ASM's in Jane's much the same way ... besides, this weapon system was never produced (was it even ever tested? I don't think there was even a prototype) for the Su-33.
No in Jane's F/A-18 you didn't fire the Harpoon at a mission editor here-is-the-bad-guy-diamond on your HUD. The missile was either slaved to a sea contact on the A/G radar, or it was simply fired in the direction of the ships, but with a pilot programmed search area size, flight profile, terminal approach, and go-active range.
The Harpoon in Jane's F/A-18 was intelligent, in LOMAC the Sunburn is not. Unless there is a magical target diamond already over the target ship the missile just flies dumbly straight and level, right over enemy ships, until it runs out of gas.
Actually, that is exactly how Argentinian air force destroyed/damaged British vessels in Falklands war! Pilots were really bored flying those missions, launched the missiles way before they could be detected and flew back home! They evaluated their success in the following morning news papers!I really highly doubt that Hajduk. Exactly how is the absolute location of an enemy ship pre-programmed into a missile? A smuggled aboard GPS beacon? A magic spy satellite laser system? Ships are dynamic entities, you can't pre-program their unfailing position into a weapon ahead of time. The only thing you could realistically pre-program the weapon with is a go-active range after launch and a search area size. The ASM used in the Falklands wasn't the Sunburn anyway... I think it was the Exocet.
My point here is that the Sunburn doesn't actually go-active and try to locate and track a ship in LOMAC, it just flies towards a mission-editor diamond that magically tracks the enemy ship for it. In the absence of such a magic diamond the weapon is useless.
The Sunburn has been produced. Apparently there is a whole stockpile of them ready for delivery, but the Russian navy can't afford to purchase them. I have heard the Chinese have managed to purchase a number, but I don't know if they are in service or if they have even obtained them yet.
Given the time-frame in LOMAC the fact that the Sunburn exists is unrealistic in of itself, but if ED is going to keep it in the game, I'd like a little bit more thought put into how it is modeled. Instead of simply flying towards an absolute and unfailing mission-editor magic target diamond, the weapons should be modeled to use their onboard systems to try to locate and track enemy ships, even if the parameters of which truly are completely out of the hands of the Flanker pilot before launch. This would have the fun, and realistic, side-effect that the weapon may entirely fail to locate its target or attack the wrong ship.
This is just my opinion. I'm sure there will be those who will dump on this already-on-a-tangent thread stating that ED's efforts are better invested in other areas, and they're probably right. I just really dislike scripted, simplified, weapon systems. Hence why the 169th likes to attack ships with dumb bombs and rockets instead of scripted unfailing Sunburns. :D
-
The Sunburn strikes me as being too simple in LOMAC... pre-designated targets, fly towards the infallible diamond, push a button, fly away... weee. I can't imagine them being quite this boring and hands-off in reality. Using dumb bombs against a ship may be a little unrealistic, but they require actual effort on the part of the pilot. I miss the kind of depth to ASMs that the Harpoon in Jane's F/A-18 had.
I'm not saying the Sunburn should be the same as the Harpoon, but how it is modeled now doesn't make much sense. I doubt real navy Flanker pilots can count on an enemy ship cooperating and remaining under some pre-designated diamond on their HUD. Settings for high/medium/low flight profiles, search area size, and go-active ranges might be neat things to have... if they are at all realistic. If not, then they would be great things to have if a flyable Hornet is ever added. :wink:
-
Invincible MANPAD man (ScreenShot_168.jpg)
Two near misses from mavericks, four CBUs, and 1000 canon rounds... no direct hits, so still he stands ready.
-
Thanks for the update Caretaker. That sounds good to me. :)
-
Dmut, if you drop two big-as-they-come fuel air explosives right over a line of parked aircraft (can't get much less armour than that) and only one of them, if any, are destroyed, than something is wrong. If you drop two Mk-84's 2 meters to the left of a docked ship, or 10-14 right of a convoy of jeeps, and nothing takes damage, than something is wrong.
It isn't difficult to demonstrate the lack of A/G weapon effectiveness, just try using anything other than cluster munitions and then try near-missing a few soft targets. I'm not talking about hitting anything as solid as a bunker or T80 here...
I'm sure the developers and beta testers are very busy getting the release prepared as quickly and truly as possible, that's just another reason why I'm bringing attention to something like this. I'd really hate to see it overlooked.
-
Are there no official responses to this question?
I find this to be a major hindrance for my enjoyment of the A/G aspect of LOMAC outside of simple tank plinking. The Su-33 looks like it could be a lot of fun for high altitude bombing--a Hornet would be even cooler mind you--but wildly off bomb blast modeling really gets in the way of that.
-
The one thing that gets me the most about the F-15's radar in LOMAC is the way if you roll left or right and change heading, contacts on your radar stay fixed in their originally detected positions. For example if you are in a right-hand turn and try to lock a contact that pops-up in the centre of the radar screen, you will be frustrated because the actual position of the contact is drifting left but the displayed contact remains fixed in the centre of the radar screen, until it fades away, or a new radar sweep detects the new instantaneous position of the contact.
I've never seen an American radar modeled like this in any other sim. IMHO the F-15's radar should be more like the Russian's in LOMAC with it's ability to give an accurate position on contacts, even when you are in a hard turn. If your heading is changing the radar should be intelligent enough to predict and update a contacts position on the radar screen. As a contact goes through it's three stage fade out on the F-15's radar they should be moving with respect to your own changes in range and heading and probably even the contacts originally detected speed and direction.
-
I did a quick search through the forums and didn't see anything already posted on this, but I could have missed it.
Have there been any changes to the bomb blast modeling in LOMAC for 1.1? I'm assuming with all the work on the new Frog there must be. In 1.02 the only bombs that seem worth caring are cluster munitions. Everything else, even the Mk-84s, don't seem very effective at killing even soft targets unless they score a direct hit.
I dropped a pair of large fuel air explosives over a line of parked aircraft in a coop last night and was quite surprised at how poorly they did against those kind of soft targets. It's like the blast range is severely stunted in most A/G bombs. In the past I've dropped Mk-82s on convoys of jeeps and have been surprised when the AI all just steer around 500 lbs. explosions that occur just a few meters away from their trucks.
-
You don't want padlock, don't use it ... if you prefer to give yourself far extra work than you need, that's your problem, don't make it ours.
Who is making it yours? Padlock is an easily enabled or disabled option. If you don't like flying in servers with full Ace difficulty settings, then don't fly in them.
-
I don't follow your post Beowulf. What exactly are you getting at? LOMAC very obviously does have a padlock option which can be set independently of other server settings.
I disagree with TrackIR being a cheat on a no-padlock server. I believe having a locked cross centering your view on your opponent for you to be a cheat. It is very easy to fly around blindly pushing the padlock key repeatedly until it finds and locks a bandit for you. Someone using padlock barely has to put any effort into visually searching for contacts. It is a simple task to pick out a bandit in heavy camo terrain with padlock that you might easily miss without it, even using a TrackIR. You can even find someone through mountains with padlock!
I don't have a TrackIR, I use a hat switch to pan my view around as I would my head in a no-padlock server, and I find the playing field very level thankyouverymuch. 8)
-
Thanks Chizh!
-
...the "stand by" mode - Wouldn't this be indistinguishable to the sim pilot from "off"?
I believe a radar in sniffed stand-by mode would still receive information from the JTIDS link and any transmitting jammers, while an off radar would not. This seems like a pretty minor detail and a low priority to me though.
Guns Only Ladder Competition!!
in Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2
Posted
Looks like all the last few minor bugs have been worked out... expect the REAL competition for fame and laurels (i.e. prizes!) to start soon!
http://www.ozhotspot.com.au/ladder_dw/