Whisper

HAAAAAAA... You made my heart pound 10x faster... all for deception :( It has allready been posted, a few weeks ago :(

FAO D-Scythe : Thks for the correction :) /me going to bed less idiot tonight What are the typical illumination angles of SST mode in aircraft and ARH missile illuminator?

No, see "Mode 1" tracking method in the second text translated. Optical is used at launch to get the angle offset from missile to target. If "Mode 1" is usable, you'll have all the information on target coming from your radar (position, speed vector and distance), you use optical systems to retrieve only the angle offset between the missile path, and ideal interception trajectory deducted from target informations, so you get a correction to be given to the missile, through "impulse packet". Once you're facing ECM, you'll fast loose the range information about target. Optical sights are then used (from what I understood you can gather range information through optical means by using 2 different methods) to get the needed information. After that everything is the same, provided that you can keep your optics onto target (to get the target range) all the while seeing the missile trails in your FoV. Hence my question : isn't the missile supposed to be kept in the optical seeker FoV when this seeker is locked on target?

Sorry to come that far back, but a few thoughts on this : Your missile seeker in a SARH is seeking the return signal coming from the target locked by the illuminator. The reason why it won't lock on a chaff without the illuminator locking on the chaff is simply that the chaff don't emit any signal. It won't lock on something it can't even "see". Your SARH signal is locked on a "return-signal" (with specific signature), not on any object in its FoV, even less a passive object. So to spoof a SARH, you HAVE TO spoof the emitting radar, ie radar of the launching plane. Vs ARH, you have to spoof the missile itself, because the missile is the illuminator. In fact, in both case, you're spoofing the illuminator, forcing it to lock on the wrong thing. You can't force the missile seeker to watch "something else" than the return-signal from the illuminator, AFAIK Well, perhaps you can, in fact. See Jane's FA-18 for this, FA-18 E seems to carry a ECM decoy built specifically for that purpose, "create" a return signal offset from the real target plane. Or perhaps they only create additionnal noise to spoof the illuminator once more, but the fact that they are used carried in the back of the plane several meters away seems to suggest that they try to force the radar/seeker to watch "the wrong thing". Now, is the missile illuminator more prone to lock on a chaff than an aircraft illuminator, I don't know. There's a big range difference to take into consideration, ARH on-board radar locks really closer.

Just got through all your tutorials this morning, they are a must see. Awesome work :) Su25T cockpit and instrumentation tour is superb, excellent promotion for LO/FC :)

From what I understood, you don't have issues in ECM-less environnements, as your optical channel is free to track your missile for guidance, and it's your radar that gives you all the tracking information needed. After that, depending on how heavy is the ECM, you must partly rely on your optical channel for target tracking, because you lack range information from your radar. BUT, not sure at all, but isn't the missile supposed to be kept inside the FoV of your optical tracking system?

May I ask if any auto-pilot system (even only an altitude hold) is planned? :)

On this topic, I'm trying to find a way to setup a dedicated LO server of some kind, how you guys do it? How to manage it from remote, how to select and start missions, etc...?

And taking off with a cross-wind of 50m/s? I try to imagine it, but I fail :P

* goes hiding waiting for the storm to pass * ;)

I said "poor" solution ;) It's the only fix I can give, however usable it can be. Tracks AVI are uncompressed?

The only poor solution would be to keep a .AVI version to at least have a viewable version of your track. Apart from that, well... bash ED ;)

I assume your talking about "Chevaliers du ciel" ("Knights of the Sky" ? oO ) It should be adaptation of a french comic which completely derived into something else. Movie in itself is not that great, Mirage images are great, though. Too close dogfighting, though.

Tung alone, no radar, EWR? Cause I was doing exactly the same, and got a completely different result. 100% was with max skilled Tung and radar

Same test and I did not have the same result at all! more like 1/4 or 1/3

Don't AI skill level influence Tung effectiveness vs Mavs? In which case, stop using "excellent" Tungs!

They confused Jane's, the books, and Jane's, the progammers, perhaps? ;)

The "holier than thou" attitude of F4 fanbois is exactly what made me split from F4 community (long time ago, it's a long-time plague). See the comments on linked thread above. IMHO you should go LO:FC if you're looking for a good Air to Ground experience, old style. I don't play A2A enough, I think both sims have their strong points (true multi-platform for LO, better EM environnement for F4, but LO coming back there, better F16 cockpit and avionics for F4, if I go quick) Campaign is winner for F4 Flight models, I felt better with the original LO ones, and FC models definitely won it for me, F4 felt too... responsive and automatic (I don't know how to express it). It's a non-true pilot PoV, so it's only feeling. FC challenging FM though add much to the sim. Graphics, well, nothing new, LO > F4, now the question is, does it matter? For A2G missions, CAS style, definitely. Has soon as you skip out radar as your primary sensor, you'll find that graphic becomes a central points in realism. If you stay focused on radar, with outside vision limited to your mav' seeker shown in right MFD, then sure, graphics is cool, but not that important. If your eye really becomes your primary sensor, then suddenly... That's why modelling CAS planes is a very good decision by ED.

Mmmh, yes, Apache, like in "West ground attack chopper" ;) And like pointed earlier, all this is "would be", there's no "fact", just rumors and speculations. Not even sure that Tank Killers will be ever born, or even that's it's really planned :p

AFAIK, tank killers would be a ground attack simulator, featuring A10, Su25(T), Ka-50, and Apache, upgraded to top ED technology (AFM and all) and probably some other new goodies.

I was about to say the blue color reminded me furiously of Havoc pit (like seen in EEAH :) )

Asking for new free keys is exactly for this case where you change your hardware. No need to pay twice.

Razorworks didi it the same way with EEAH/EECH. You can keep forest edge with individual trees, though, and individual trees at some place, etc... to make the forest "block" only reachable from above, this would solve the "can't hide among the trees" issues. You couldn't hide in the middle of a forest, that's all (and that's realistic ;) )

Isn't it already the case?

"It's just ADDING an F-16" Where something else and never seen before could have been done instead. That's our point ;) But the documentation issue kind of blast the whole argument apart. You do accurate modeling when you have acurate data.