IFF in the f-15 eagle, whats the latest

[GGTharos]

I don't need to.

[Kula66]

Yep. That's why we're getting the AIM-120C ... yep.

 

And will in be more than just a skin/fin change? Or are they addressing some of the real problems? With active radar missiles and the Eagles radar?

[GGTharos]

The 120C has better guidance logic and countermeasure rejection capability.

[Force_Feedback]

And will in be more than just a skin/fin change? Or are they addressing some of the real problems? With active radar missiles and the Eagles radar?

 

Don't know about problems, but performance will be different, the aim-9P will be rear-hemisphere seeking only as well.

[Cobra360]

And the point in using the P over the M will be.......................

Unless everyone in an online dogfight agrees to be armed with R-H IR only missles.

[Force_Feedback]

And the point in using the P over the M will be.......................

/QUOTE]

 

To create an alternative to these gay-off bore engagements, where all you have to do is pull a trigger.

 

Using the P needs some flying skills, same as gunzo, only easier.

 

Yeah, why fly dogfights if you can fire your amraam/r-77 and run... Because you want to have some fun, and not blow up without a notice, or doing the sneaky bastard routine yourself.

[EvilBivol-1]

Try again, GG.

I'm not GG, but how about,

 

"Yep, that's why the F-16CJ is their next planned project.. yep."

 

No Promises.

[Kula66]

The 120C has better guidance logic and countermeasure rejection capability.

 

Thats in RL ... so in LO we'll see a drop in range and a tendancy to be attracted to the ground?

 

GGT, you know as well as I do that missile logic/FM needs a complete overhaul - it just doesn't match RL! There are just too many oddities in the current implementation to keep tweaking with ... fundamentally its broken! IR missiles are over modelled and super smart ARMAAMs/Adders are easy spoofed and the range benefits from high fast shots are insufficient, etc etc.

 

ED, please, please implement WAFM for all A2A missiles! This afterall supposed to be the ultimate air combat simulator!

[D-Scythe]

Thats in RL ... so in LO we'll see a drop in range and a tendancy to be attracted to the ground?

 

GGT, you know as well as I do that missile logic/FM needs a complete overhaul - it just doesn't match RL! There are just too many oddities in the current implementation to keep tweaking with ... fundamentally its broken! IR missiles are over modelled and super smart ARMAAMs/Adders are easy spoofed and the range benefits from high fast shots are insufficient, etc etc.

 

ED, please, please implement WAFM for all A2A missiles! This afterall supposed to be the ultimate air combat simulator!

 

I think IR missiles are modelled quite well actually. Besides the fact that the R-27ET should have a worse seeker than the R-73, everything is pretty much what I'd expect out of heat-seekers.

[S77th-GOYA]

I don't need to.

 

The CIS gets a another completely new flyable a/c and the west gets a missile they are supposed to already have?

 

Yes, you do.

 

I'm not GG, but how about,

 

"Yep, that's why the F-16CJ is their next planned project.. yep."

 

No Promises.

 

Last I heard, "Tank Killers" was the next planned project. And I base my opinions on what ED has actually produced, not what they have said with "no promises".

[GGTharos]

Thats in RL ... so in LO we'll see a drop in range and a tendancy to be attracted to the ground?

 

GGT, you know as well as I do that missile logic/FM needs a complete overhaul - it just doesn't match RL! There are just too many oddities in the current implementation to keep tweaking with ... fundamentally its broken! IR missiles are over modelled and super smart ARMAAMs/Adders are easy spoofed and the range benefits from high fast shots are insufficient, etc etc.

 

ED, please, please implement WAFM for all A2A missiles! This afterall supposed to be the ultimate air combat simulator!

 

Alright. I just won't say anything next time. Wait 'till BS is released and see for yourself ;)

[Kula66]

Well, I'm happy to keep my fingers crossed - and hope ED deliver to the A2A community!

[Force_Feedback]

I think IR missiles are modelled quite well actually. Besides the fact that the R-27ET should have a worse seeker than the R-73, everything is pretty much what I'd expect out of heat-seekers.

 

Slightly worse? How can that be if it's the same thing?

 

I think in order to have relistic radar guided missiles we need to have jammers that at least have the types of jamming definable (and wether jamming is done like in RL, I don't care, just script it). Yes there are HOJ modes, but jammers should not be what they are now, beacons of light saying "I'm over here, plz shot me down". Also, I've never seen a jammer send off an incoming missile into the land/sea surface when flying under 500m, so this kind of jamming effect isn't moddled at all.

 

Also, radar guided missiles rarely have a perfect guidance, the things lose track of their target quite often, leading to "unnecessary" (if they hadn't lost the lock) course corrections, wasting kinetic energy. Lets hope ED will include this into WAFM in the future.

[GGTharos]

Slightly worse? How can that be if it's the same thing?

 

I think in order to have relistic radar guided missiles we need to have jammers that at least have the types of jamming definable (and wether jamming is done like in RL, I don't care, just script it). Yes there are HOJ modes, but jammers should not be what they are now, beacons of light saying "I'm over here, plz shot me down". Also, I've never seen a jammer send off an incoming missile into the land/sea surface when flying under 500m, so this kind of jamming effect isn't moddled at all.

 

That's right, there's no ground bounce effect whatsoever, wether 'natural' or otherwise. And yes, jammers should be modelled more intelligently, but that's not such an easy thing to do either.

 

Also, radar guided missiles rarely have a perfect guidance, the things lose track of their target quite often, leading to "unnecessary" (if they hadn't lost the lock) course corrections, wasting kinetic energy. Lets hope ED will include this into WAFM in the future.

 

Wrong. There may be spurious doppler effects and of course radar glint which will cause the missile to alter course, but it has nothing to do with it losing track often.

[EvilBivol-1]

Last I heard, "Tank Killers" was the next planned project.

To be honest, I personally never understood what that project is supposed to be... Regardless however, they are working on an authentic F-16 simulation, which is hardly exclusive to the eastern market.

 

The CIS gets a another completely new flyable a/c and the west gets a missile they are supposed to already have?

In case you didn't know, Lock On began as an addon to Flanker-2.5. It was to be called "Flanker: Attack" and would feature the... Su-25T, or Su-39, as it was called at the time. If you google it up, you will find early cockpit screenshots of that project. Then, following another series of business restructuring (UBI-Soft becoming the publisher), the project was expanded and became what we know as Lock On, shifting the focus to a more 'Western' audience and drpping the Su-25T altogether. As you know, UBI-Soft is now largely out of the picture. As for the Ka-50, it has similar historical and logical developments behind its inception, one of which is the nearly identical targeting and attack system with the Su-25T. As it turns out, Black Shark's model of it is incomparably more advanced than Flaming Cliffs' model.

 

Anyway, its certainly true that the immediate focus (LO:BS) is on another Eastern flyable. But, the foundation for it was layed a long time a go and has much less to do with east/west marketing than the realities and opportunities facing ED during the past few years. Development of the F-16 is only evidence of this.

 

IMHO

[bflagg]

Yep. That's why we're getting the AIM-120C ... yep.

 

 

GG...

Why do you maintain fanatical faith here?

 

You are a intelligent individual and your blind faith is ..well beyond faith (for me at least)

It's been posted here and in the ubi forums many times...

ED included only the US flyables to placate Ubicrap.... period.

 

I've come to the firm conclusion that for the western customers. we are nothing more than an after thought....

 

oooohh.. look ! another new screeshot of a blade of a grass with AFM! Yet the fecking world is messed up.

 

...and this is why you all don't see me here as of late.

 

It's the same old crap and hyperbole that was out before LOMAC first came out ... and nearly nothing was fact.

[GGTharos]

I don't maintain blind faith. But -you can- continue to claim that this is what I do.

 

On the other hand, you can take it as a hint.

 

I have been out here telling people what will be and what won't be, as I see it, and from 'what I hear'.

 

That's right, it means it's unofficial, and you have every right to not believe me and call me too optimistic, or whatever.

 

That's fine, I won't blame you. But understand that I try to form my conclusions in an educated manner.

 

Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, existing Russian flyables are getting -no- tweaks whatsoever, either.

 

It's a roadmap, and roadmaps are subject to timeframes. Doing stuff with the fighters is slotted for much latter. Not just USAF flyables, all of'em.

 

Got that? It had been VERY clearly posted that priority would be given to the Ka-50 ALONE for BS.

 

It has also been made clear that the -other- flyables will be looked at in a gradual fashion -after- BS.

 

 

I'm quite certain this has been posted by one ED person or another somewhere around here!

 

I don't mean to be condescending, I just think I have slightly better insight into this, that's all. You know I can't give you details, and for this reason I don't expect you to take my words at face value.

[D-Scythe]

Slightly worse? How can that be if it's the same thing?

 

Hmm, I was under the impression the R-27ET used an older seeker.

 

Also, radar guided missiles rarely have a perfect guidance, the things lose track of their target quite often, leading to "unnecessary" (if they hadn't lost the lock) course corrections, wasting kinetic energy. Lets hope ED will include this into WAFM in the future.

 

Such a feature would be implemented through the Advanced Sensor/Seeker Model, not WAFM.

[tflash]

I've come to the firm conclusion that for the western customers. we are nothing more than an after thought....

 

 

I do not now where you base your firm conclusions on, but I doubt it is on solid information. How about this:

 

".... it looks like Eagle Dynamics are gonna be busy, they won the contract for an A-10C simulator for the ANG."

 

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=146;t=000936;p=0

 

Read more at: http://www.thebattlesim.com/

 

Recognize the site's design?

 

I guess educated Western Customers like ANG just to name some have a more positive view on ED. ;)

[hitman]

I especially like this image.

[bflagg]

I don't maintain blind faith. But -you can- continue to claim that this is what I do.

 

On the other hand, you can take it as a hint.

 

I have been out here telling people what will be and what won't be, as I see it, and from 'what I hear'.

 

That's right, it means it's unofficial, and you have every right to not believe me and call me too optimistic, or whatever.

 

That's fine, I won't blame you. But understand that I try to form my conclusions in an educated manner.

 

Furthermore, in case you haven't noticed, existing Russian flyables are getting -no- tweaks whatsoever, either.

 

It's a roadmap, and roadmaps are subject to timeframes. Doing stuff with the fighters is slotted for much latter. Not just USAF flyables, all of'em.

 

Got that? It had been VERY clearly posted that priority would be given to the Ka-50 ALONE for BS.

 

It has also been made clear that the -other- flyables will be looked at in a gradual fashion -after- BS.

 

 

I'm quite certain this has been posted by one ED person or another somewhere around here!

 

I don't mean to be condescending, I just think I have slightly better insight into this, that's all. You know I can't give you details, and for this reason I don't expect you to take my words at face value.

 

 

GG.. you totally missed my point....

 

but I'm dropping this...