Boneski Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 D... On the 120 v 7 missile issue... Real world facts kick design's butt every time. On the Doppler issue... that's a natural effect. The game on your desktop pc is not trying to simulate Nature... just the jet. It's fair to say that if then logic is in play to simulate the tactics that can defeat / degrade doppler returns... All you need to know is that if then logic works on paper with a fair amount of certainty... this is not so true real life... Since the game is not really able to model all of the variables that exist in nature... you have to deal with some concessions. The idea is that the AI / Ownship can do things that will effect the simulated missiles PK... It's not clear what people are expecting... On of the biggest issues is that most people don't fly like pilots in real life... so talk of real life happenings is sort of a moot point. Please do not derive from this post that your opinion is being dissed... you have an opinion... you want XYZ fix. That fact is respected. The cool thing about this Lock On team and the work they are doing is that they have and are developing a very impressive software program... simulating the best they can the jets and hardware used by the jets. It truly is amazing the high level of fidelity of this program. Yeah...it's called DOPPLER ;) Look it up. Considering that the AMRAAM is designed to be superior to the AIM-7 in every single way possible, I fail to see how this is the case. LOL, AIM-7 is far better...as it should be. You crack me up :D My mission is to fly, fight, and win. o-:|:-o What I do is sometimes get a tin of soup, heat it up, poach an egg in it, serve that with a pork pie sausage roll.
S77th-GOYA Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 I think, in regards to any optically guided and Mk 1 eyeball acquired IR SAM, if you approach supersonic, by the time the little Igla dude or strela operator would realize you were there you'd be gone by and he wouldn't have a hope of acquiring you. A shilka's limited acquisition range would also be too short to pick you and react while blowing by supersonic. It's possible that Eagle is taking into account these factors. Imagine yourself... a supersonic jet approaches you low level... you would have no clue it was there until it had blown over and was far gone... not to mention the complete disorientation you'd experience including the shockwave effects and pain of blown ear drums. :) I might buy that if dog ear radars weren't included in the group that is blind to >Mach 1 targets. Also, the way that radars don't appear on the RWR of a plane unless the radar has a good track on that plane. That simply doesn't make sense. The radar signal is being sent but the RWR doesn't see it?
GGTharos Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 IIRC, it was mentioned that a supersonic aircraft would be a difficult target for a stringer, thus an Igla also. However, guidance in games typically doesn't have 'issues', so -probably- they just don't launch the missile instead. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
D-Scythe Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 D... On the 120 v 7 missile issue... Real world facts kick design's butt every time. On the Doppler issue... that's a natural effect. The game on your desktop pc is not trying to simulate Nature... just the jet. It's fair to say that if then logic is in play to simulate the tactics that can defeat / degrade doppler returns... All you need to know is that if then logic works on paper with a fair amount of certainty... this is not so true real life... Since the game is not really able to model all of the variables that exist in nature... you have to deal with some concessions. The idea is that the AI / Ownship can do things that will effect the simulated missiles PK... It's not clear what people are expecting... On of the biggest issues is that most people don't fly like pilots in real life... so talk of real life happenings is sort of a moot point. Please do not derive from this post that your opinion is being dissed... you have an opinion... you want XYZ fix. That fact is respected. The cool thing about this Lock On team and the work they are doing is that they have and are developing a very impressive software program... simulating the best they can the jets and hardware used by the jets. It truly is amazing the high level of fidelity of this program. Lol, no worries. You can keep your opinions and I'll keep mine. Though for the record, the AIM-120 has a much higher combat PK than any missile ever produced, so how you can say that the real world facts support the notion that the AIM-7 is better is beyond me.
S77th-GOYA Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 IIRC, it was mentioned that a supersonic aircraft would be a difficult target for a stringer, thus an Igla also. However, guidance in games typically doesn't have 'issues', so -probably- they just don't launch the missile instead. What? I already said in the previous thread about this problem that Mach 1 is too fast for MANPADs. They aren't the problem. Your second sentence is a bit cryptic. There's all kinds of problems with SAM guidance in this game, but I didn't list it because it was "non-disclosed" in that thread about the OSA.
Boneski Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 "how you can say that the real world facts support the notion that the AIM-7 is better "is beyond me". The Part in Bold is so true... :p Lol, no worries. You can keep your opinions and I'll keep mine. Though for the record, the AIM-120 has a much higher combat PK than any missile ever produced, so how you can say that the real world facts support the notion that the AIM-7 is better is beyond me. My mission is to fly, fight, and win. o-:|:-o What I do is sometimes get a tin of soup, heat it up, poach an egg in it, serve that with a pork pie sausage roll.
Ironhand Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Guys, It's not an issue of whether or not there's a launch window available for the SAMs. The issue that I think S77th-GOYA is referring to is this: Once you go supersonic, there is no indication that radar-guided short-range SAMs even exist on the RWR. Even search radar signals disappear. Of course, those SAMs never launch either. That may or may not be a separate issue. Rich YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg _____ Win 11 Pro x64, Asrock Z790 Steel Legend MoBo, Intel i7-13700K, MSI RKT 4070 Super 12GB, Corsair Dominator DDR5 RAM 32GB.
Ardillita Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Not everything... ARH maddog warning is too short ***** The worning appears as soon as the 120 goes active, it is correct in my opinion. small SAMs ignoring >Mach1 targets ****** This is because if you take a look at the SAMs specifications, you will see that they have limits on wich the can tracks and lock. Very fast targets can escape to the lock > firing. 15 TWS locks not centering on primary SAMs with more lock range on a receding target than an approaching target This has some logic, since the radar signature of a receding target is bigger than an incomeing one has. US AWACS needs to be reworked. It's more of a hindrance than a help. Textures not appearing soon enough in magnified seeker/Shkval MiG-29 can reach Mach 2.4 when max should be much slower ********The MiG-29 is equipped with two RD-33 turbofan engines. The MiG-29 is the world's first aircraft fitted with dual-mode air intakes. During flight, the open air intakes feed air to the engines. While moving on the ground, the air intakes are closed and air is fed through the louvres on the upper surface of the wing root to prevent ingestion of foreign objects from the runway. This is particularly important when operating from poorly prepared airfields. The engines provide a maximum speed of 2,400km/hour at altitude and 1,500km/hour near the ground and the service ceiling is 18,000m. F-15 can't reach Mach 2.5 or 2.4 for that matter MiG-29 should be able to carry 6 R-77s A-10 loadout should be corrected Tunguska is available to Ukraine only in MSB 1990, not as a single unit In F-15 TWS mode, target reappears in the position in which it was first locked if lock is broken. F-15 is missing its IFF interrogator mp_log.txt lacks complete debrief info and mission goals
D-Scythe Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 "how you can say that the real world facts support the notion that the AIM-7 is better "is beyond me". The Part in Bold is so true... :p The fact that the AIM-120 has twice the PK (over 60%) than the AIM-7M (about 30%) must be beyond you then :p
Rhen Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 When the only world you live in is the virtual world, well then the Sparrow IS better than the Slammer....;) At any rate, there's a difference between a "maddog" launch, and "Pitbull". The missile goes active immediately off the rails in a maddog so the warning should come sooner. On a guided launch in TWS there shouldn't be a warning until the missile goes pitbull and the missile is actively trying to acquire the target. I think Goya has a point.
S77th-GOYA Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 ARH maddog warning is too short ***** The worning appears as soon as the 120 goes active, it is correct in my opinion. small SAMs ignoring >Mach1 targets ****** This is because if you take a look at the SAMs specifications, you will see that they have limits on wich the can tracks and lock. Very fast targets can escape to the lock > firing. MiG-29 can reach Mach 2.4 when max should be much slower ********The MiG-29 [snip] engines provide a maximum speed of 2,400km/hour at altitude and 1,500km/hour near the ground and the service ceiling is 18,000m. First, 2400kph is Mach 2.253 in the tropopause. You proved my point. To test maddog warning, connect with someone else in multiplayer. Have them in an F-15 and you in whatever you want. Fly directly at each other and don't maneuver. Have the F-15 fire a 120 in TWS mode from 8nm. Take note of the warning you receive. Then fly it again and have the F-15 fire a 120 without a lock at 8nm. If you still think it is the same after that test, let us know. I have read the specs on these SAMs and radars and the max target speed limit is not mach 1. This track demonstrates the problem pretty well. Note that if something gains a lock while the plane is under mach1, it seems to hold it.
Rhen Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 The fact that the AIM-120 has twice the PK (over 60%) than the AIM-7M (about 30%) must be beyond you then :p When launched within parameters, the slammers actual Pk is 95%. NO! NOT IN LOMAC! (but IRL :cool: )
bflagg Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 hey.. shep.. when I keep the slider at 50% I get a higher PK than higher (approx 80%) Also position matters also for both... when the mission starts.. waiting to shoot down the IL76 before turning into the Su17 is where the lower PK exists... as to where if I turn into the SU17 immediately when the mission starts, I have greater success with both tws / no-radar guidance firings. I would surmise from this little exercise...that it was mostly position on my part... but I think the slider played a negative role when it was set higher and approaching from the right side of the 17's.... I'd post the tracks but they pretty much show what you did..execept for the higher slider setting and approaching from the right..... (1 tws hit..other missed) Thanks for your help. Thanks, Brett
S77th-GOYA Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 When launched within parameters, the slammers actual Pk is 95%. NO! NOT IN LOMAC! (but IRL :cool: ) Do you have a link or can you quote where you read that?
Shepski Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 In "Mig-29 Flight Manual: Declassified" it states that maximum speed in level flight is Mach 2.3.
Shepski Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Ahh... interesting... seriously... I would leave the slider at default and never move it. :) I think the biggest misconception people have with AAMs it that they should be killing evasive fighter sized targets from long range and that just doesn't happen. Cheers hey.. shep.. when I keep the slider at 50% I get a higher PK than higher (approx 80%) Also position matters also for both... when the mission starts.. waiting to shoot down the IL76 before turning into the Su17 is where the lower PK exists... as to where if I turn into the SU17 immediately when the mission starts, I have greater success with both tws / no-radar guidance firings. I would surmise from this little exercise...that it was mostly position on my part... but I think the slider played a negative role when it was set higher and approaching from the right side of the 17's.... I'd post the tracks but they pretty much show what you did..execept for the higher slider setting and approaching from the right..... (1 tws hit..other missed) Thanks for your help.
D-Scythe Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Do you have a link or can you quote where you read that? Well, Rhen is about right. Statistically (IIRC), in its 10 kills, the AIM-120 achieved 8 SSKPs, including its first 3. This kind of success is unparalleled in the history of air-to-air missile combat. I think the biggest misconception people have with AAMs it that they should be killing evasive fighter sized targets from long range and that just doesn't happen. To be fair, most people aren't that stupid. In fact, I gaurantee that 90% of the people who complain do not have this mindset. If the missiles miss from long-range, I doubt people would get frustrated and stuff. It's when the missiles miss in the NEZ that frustrates most people, I think.
Shepski Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Well, Rhen is about right. Statistically (IIRC), in its 10 kills, the AIM-120 achieved 8 SSKPs, including its first 3. This kind of success is unparalleled in the history of air-to-air missile combat. On what kind of targets and it what kind of engagement scenarios?
S77th-GOYA Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 Well, Rhen is about right. Statistically (IIRC), in its 10 kills, the AIM-120 achieved 8 SSKPs, including its first 3. This kind of success is unparalleled in the history of air-to-air missile combat. What about 120s used in an engagement with no kill?
D-Scythe Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 On what kind of targets and it what kind of engagement scenarios? Well, information like that is hard to come by. For example, it's never indicated what sorta evasive maneuvers the target performed, nor the precise geometry of the launching aircraft and the target at the moment of AMRAAM release. Usually, only range information is given, maybe time of missile flight and altitude. The last two SSKs were the double Fulcrum kills by an F-15C in TWS mode, range 16 miles. Eagles were diving in from 30 000+ ft, MiGs were substantially lower. That's usually as detailed as it gets. What about 120s used in an engagement with no kill? Only one engagement where AMRAAMs were fired and no kills were scored, during Operation Desert Fox. Three AMRAAMs were launched at a flight of Foxbats violating the No-Fly zone at long-range. The Foxbats turned tail and ran. On the same day, Navy F-14s similarily engaged another flight of MIG-25s with 2 AIM-54Cs. The Foxbats ran again and both missiles missed. EDIT: SSKP should be SSK, for Single-Shot Kill. SSKP is the probability of an SSK. Sorry, mixed those up.
rlogue Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 :horseback There's no way slammers are that good in real life .. I have proof that I can't share (classified) that they are just for decoration ! I even have a video of an F15 flying without launching one slammer ! It's just there to make the pilot feel good about himself.
GGTharos Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Sounds like LOMAC's got it right then? ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
chrno120 Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 :confused: So Missiles are of no use then? Makes sense... R-27ER & AIM-120C always end up missing in 1.12a I get it now... no wonder their called "MISSiles" ;) The most stupid member in the forum
S77th-GOYA Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 Three AMRAAMs were launched at a flight of Foxbats violating the No-Fly zone at long-range. Do you know the altitudes and range of that engagement?
ARM505 Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Does anybody know from what version of LO this graph was made?
Recommended Posts