D-Scythe

There are other ways to balance a game besides porking advanced tech to balance it out with older tech. A big one: strength through numbers. Moreover, this would also actually encourage TEAM play/tactics, and we'd probably see a decline in the solo spamming acts. While I agree with you, and I know ED is doing the best they can, I also sympathize with ViperEagle. Porking the F-15C is not the way to maintain balance - it's *just* as unrealistic as Su-27 pilots using R-77s. If giving a weapon more capabilities than it should be considered cheating, what about intentionally decreasing the capabilities of the weapon? What makes the latter more acceptable than the former?

Which brings us back to my main point - the NEZ is only significant in BVR combat because: - outside of it, the target can evade it 100% of the time because a missile can't hit what it can't chase down - and inside of it, Pk is high enough to make things start dying really quickly if NEZ's overlap (For an overall Pk of about 60% for the AMRAAM in combat) Now, if the target can defeat your missile virtually every time with a single manouevre due to a stupid seeker (so now Pk in NEZ is ~0%), then the NEZ (and all the the BVR manouvers you can do to expand it) loses its tactical significance doesn't it? In LOMAC: - 0% outside and ~0% inside Quick, someone with a calculator - how do you get an overall Pk of 60% with two zeros?

And where did I say it did? All I'm saying is if the target does not even try to out-run/rate the missile, because he knows he'd probably spoof it, then the NEZ loses its significance, whose Pk increase stems from the fact that the target cannot defeat the missile kinematically. First of all, I never said there is nothing you can do - I said that you cannot possibly bleed away enough energy from the incoming missile for it to not kill you on kinematics alone. Good? ;) Secondly, since when was the NEZ is defined by one specific manouevre? It wouldn't even be "no-escape" then - there are plenty of ways to bleed even more energy off the incoming missile aside from just turning around at 6-Gs and adding 300 kts. Dive to thicker air, weave a bit if it's a PN missile, a combination of the two, etc.

The F/A-18 vs. MiG-29K add-on with F-15C vs. Su-27 for me. Multi-role naval jets with the two most popular fighters for A/A work is a winning combination IMO. Just make sure the Su-27 is the -SM variant.

Look at it this way - if the target doesn't attempt to out-run/out-rate your missile because he *knows* he'll trash your seeker regardless, then that defeats the point of providing the shooter with information that Pk has reached its highest point in the NEZ. This is because the target is relying solely on trashing your missile's seeker in the first place - all the Pk increases associated with kinematic dimension of your shot is therefore meaningless. LPI is a general, broad feature - it's not simply the ability to avoid tripping the RWR - it can make you look farther away than you really are, or confuse you with some other type of signal, etc. What kind of LPI technique? Planar radar, phased or active ESA LPI radars? Beaming is a *specific* manouvre, in a *specific* scenario. LPI, HoJ, HPRF, etc. - they're general features that encompass a lot of specifics. Take ECCM: we don't know the different techniques of jamming the radar/missile can counter - we only know that there is ECCM, and it's there to deal with jamming. Should we make all radar missiles completely useless against an aircraft equipped with a jammer that can perform cross eye jamming because it's not advertised by Raytheon that the AIM-120 can attack a cross eye jamming target? Simply because it hasn't been leaked? Furthermore, do you want to consider the things that have been leaked/suggested and isn't modelled? No, I just don't get you're "leak" argument - it's not like I'm saying radar missiles should be COMPLETELY resistent. Some leaks, like pilot testimony that AMRAAM is lethal out to 8 miles (plenty of time to notch), military analyst speculations on AMRAAM's seeker (Carlo Kopp, http://www.ausairpower.net/amraam.html), etc. don't count as "leaks," but when I suggested a manual instead then, you're saying I'm looking for a Bible? Okaaaaay.... Have you missed all the threads complaining about spammers, people flying around at low altitudes, leaving ECM on, Lock On gets like Air Quake at times, R-27ET sniping, etc.? There are a TON of these threads, and unless people are making this stuff up, yes, they ARE happening. EDIT: Don't think we're talking about the same thing here. In my previous post, I said bad things were already happening - and you replied that they're not, but then proceed to list a bunch of things that should be happening, but because they don't, bad things are happening, which agrees with my previous statement...? No, you CANNOT defeat a missile kinematically in its NEZ. No matter what you do, there is NO way to run the missile out of energy before it kills you. That is the very DEFINITION of the NO-ESCAPE zone.

Yes, so the only way to evade a missile in its NEZ is through trashing the seeker. But if the missile seekers suck in the first place, there really is no point to the NEZ, because no one is going to be trying to out-turn or out-run the missile then. You think that Raytheon or the USAF is going to come out and explicitly say that "Yes, the AMRAAM is programmed with algorithms to track targets trying to notch it"? This is a *specific* scenario/manouvre here, not the general information like HPRF, HOJ, etc. Missile guidance is one of the most highly classified aspects of modern warfare - ALL the missile evasion manouevers that we know of deal with defeating missiles kinematically (even though they might have other applications). For example, you're hardly ever gonna find a military source (like a basic flight manual) that emphasizes the "hiding in the notch" part of the beam manouever more than "force the incoming missile to deplete as much energy as possible" part. No, I said that I'd rather have a mediocre FM and a good seeker FM. Obviously both are important, and I'm fine if ED wishes to implement WAFM first. I stated so in my first post - I was just ranting. Actually perhaps I did, but it's not the way I meant it. I think if you can't have both, a good seeker model is the better way to go. Not asking for any interim fixes in this one ;) That's already what's happening in LOMAC - and the fact people just load up with 8 AMRAAMs, don't even bother to turn on the radar or anything and just shoot all 8 in the direction the RWR is indicating the threats are. Don't know how WAFM is gonna solve that one, if spamming guy is good enough to dodge every single return shot (from non-spammers), retreat then rearm. My parents obviously went wrong somewhere.

Touche.

Haha, well, when Wolverine goes head-to-head against a guy who can move *planets*, then come talk to me. Otherwise, he's just a glory hog only popular with people who know nothing about him or comics in general :thumbup:

Batman can go toe-to-toe with the strongest metas in the world. Hulk is nothing compared to Superman, Martian Manhunter and the every bust-ascious Wonder Woman. Wolverine is just an over-hyped, under-achieving hairball glorified by the media because he's "badass."

I coulda sworn Bruce Wayne's parents were killed by some no-name mugger... Nah, that's Joker, not Batman.

Nope, the F-15s were simulating PAF F-16As and F-7s (or whatever). No AMRAAMs. It's all about politics. The F-15Cs did "badly" because the USAF desperately "needs" the F-22A.

The same reason why Batman continues his crusade against crime in Gotham.

It's just as complicated.

Yes, there was a shift. In the '70s, pre-doppler missiles, they were still building fighters armed with AIM-9s. And how are these fighters gonna use those AIM-9s? By wading through the missile envelopes of enemy fighters to smack them with a 'heater. You see any of these types of fighters now? Since the AIM-7F/M? Yes, it INDIRECTLY has to do with seekers. The NEZ is the portion of a missile's envelope where it can only be evaded by screwing its seeker - if its seeker SUCKS in the first place, what's the point of the NEZ? The NEZ is ONLY important if it's seeker is good enough to actually make the missile MORE of a threat than it otherwise would be in the outer portions of its MEZ (where it can be dodged by other means).

And as I have stated repeatedly before, yes, they ARE kinematic. But you are not looking far enough ahead - these tactics are just a MEANS to get the missile on target with enough energy for the SEEKER to home in on the target to destroy it. If the seeker is NOT up to the task, than everything leading up to it, INCLUDING A-pole/F-pole/etc. is MEANINGLESS. You might as well F-pole a ballistic rocket - sure, it has WAFM, but is it gonna hit anything? That smack was absolutely unwarranted :p

Passing head-on target? You do realize that both the Flanker and the target would both be transonic right? There's no way a Flanker would be able to pull a Cobra transonic, and if it's slow enough that it enters the merge at Cobra speeds, than it has already lost the dogfight. Nobody bleeds away energy intentionally to sell the farm on a shot that may or may not work.

No, by ensuring that my missiles have enough energy for its SEEKER to guide onto the target and destroy it - NOT physics. It could have all the energy in the world and it would mean jack squat if the target pulls one lousy manouever to dodge it 100% of the time (like in LOMAC).

I never said they had anything to do with guidance. I simply said that the ultimate point of A-pole/F-pole/MEZ/NEZ tactics are to increase your Pk while decreasing your enemy's Pk - they are not ABOUT physics, they USE physics to achieve the desired goal. Who said you automatically go boom in the NEZ? First of all, the NEZ is the point that you cannot defeat a missile through kinematics/manouevering alone - a very violent manouever usually won't get the job done, because a missile is MUCH more agile than any fighter plane (unless the manouver is designed to throw off the SEEKER). Second of all, while you don't automatically go boom in the NEZ, the resistance of radar seekers have gotten to the point that there is still a very high chance of dying within a missile's NEZ, since that is the ONLY way to defeat a missile fired within its NEZ - that is, to defeat the seeker. Hence, because it is increasingly difficult to defeat/fool the seeker in modern radar missiles, there is a shift in modern fighter tactics in avoiding the NEZ of your opponent (because that is the area where you can dodge a missile ONLy by defeating its seeker). Lock On should reflect that. Obviously you have to have BOTH. My point is that its much better to have a good seeker model and a mediocre physics model than the other way around. Again, the point here isn't the realism of the missile - the fact that most things are classified is something everyone here can agree on. We're NEVER going to get something that is "realistic" in terms of missile modelling - simplifications and guestimations must ALWAYS be made, and frankly, it's not something I worry too much about. It's the proper execution of tactics that bugs me - that is the type of realism that any PC sim should first and foremost try to achieve. Like in Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon 4.0 - their missile models don't annoy me half as much as the ones in LOMAC.

That's where you're absolutely wrong. NEZ/MEZ/A-pole/F-pole is all about killing your target - yes, it's based on physics/kinetics, but they are simply one of the means to this end IRL. If you have the means, but your missiles are too stupid to accomplish the desired end result - i.e. the destruction of the target - then logically, you'd have players going about trying to kill their targets by unrealistic tactics like spamming and trying to hide in the notch by flying low. Quite simply put, what is the point of executing realistic tactics/modelling realistic physics if you cannot get the desired result anyway?

No, it wouldn't. Modern BVR tactics not only tries to increase your NEZ/MEZ, but also to avoid your opponent's NEZ while trying to catch him in yours to kill him. The philosophy is to make sure your missiles have enough energy to kill its target, but also retaining enough energy yourself to avoid any return shot. But with radar missiles as dumb as they are, what's the point? With manouevers that work 100% against incoming missiles whether you are in the NEZ or not, then it doesn't matter if you have a missile that arrives on target at Mach 4 because you painstakingly worked your radar right, found your target quickly, climbed and accelerated to give your missiles more energy - all your missiles are gonna miss. I disagree with this. A $30 product like LOMAC should not aim to deliver the same results as a $250 product like SBProPE. Yes, it should try to be as realistic as possible given the scope of its purpose, but really, it's a PC product of entertainment - we don't need it to be so realistic that pilots can actually use it as a training tool.

The noses of the rear AIM-120s should be perfectly aligned with the tails of the AIM-7s. Overall, the AIM-120s should be tilting slightly down. EDIT: K, got your answer :)

Or ED could model it so that the missiles hit something in their NEZs once in a while. Than the next 7 missiles following behind that one would be a waste.

While I agree with your points, I still believe that you can have missiles that fly and navigate to the target with proper physics and all that, but if in the end it's too stupid to hit anything, than there's really no point. ED can put WAFM into the radar missiles and they will *still* be porked IMO - so you get a missile that flies to the target like a real missile, but it might as well be a ballistic rocket because it STILL can't hit targets in its NEZ worth a damn. End-game behaviour should take first priority, since the problem now is the fact that the target can swim through overlapping NEZs with a high degree of security if the pilot knows what he is doing. F-pole, A-pole, get higher/faster, etc. - these *real* BVR tactics really don't have a lot of significance in Lock On. A missile is just as easily dodged when fired from the NEZ than in the outer portions of the MEZ. A $30 PC entertainment product like Lock On cannot possibly be realistic in EVERY part of the missile modelling equation, and IMO, it shouldn't try to be. As long as I can fly and fight realistically, I could care less about the specifics of the AMRAAM - it's certain that the facts we need are going to be classified anyway.

Again, if you consider each element of missile modelling individually, than yes, I wouldn't disagree that ED has produced the most realistic missile model so far. But again, the fact that some things are modelled well but others are undermodelled/omitted means these elements don't come together well - we can't fight realistically with radar missiles. And the "feel" of flying has nothing to do with the topic and is frankly a disputable point. None of us has ever flown the Block 52 F-16CJ, an F/A-18E Super Bug AND an F-15C Eagle in our lifetimes.

That's true, but that's only a measure of defense on the radars of the shooters, not the missiles. Again, if radar missiles are 100% ineffective against the notch IRL, but you can use multi-ship tactics to fight targets in the notch, than Hughes should've produced a BVR heat-seeking missile for the AMRAAM program, not an active radar one. That way, you can still maintain a track on the target BVR when it notches, but attack it with a datalinked, *silent* BVR AAM. BAe, Vympl and Rafael should've come to that conclusion as well, instead of settling for active radar missiles in their respective BVR missile products. Obviously no RCS signature would mean no tracking period ;) But we're not talking stealth aircraft here - the missile is going to easily see the clutter and the target in terms of RCS. However, beyond that, I fail to see how RCS factors into tracking at all, especially this "scattering" characteristic of RCS. It's not like there are different types of RCS for the missile to distinguish like there are different doppler frequencies. As far as I know, you can get the AMRAAM to shootdown a paper/wooden airplane provided that the missile can home in on its doppler return. And that would scatter RF energy differently than metal as well. Notching doesn't protect you from an NEZ. The NEZ is defined as the envelope that the target cannot out-run or out-turn the missile. Notching doesn't try to out-turn or out-run the missile - it tries to "hide" from it.