No one escapes in front of the Russian aircraft

[L0op8ack]

I bet you will produce AIM-120 exploit ACMIs soon, as many as R-27/73's

:P

[Iceman1987]

I bet you will produce AIM-120 exploit ACMIs soon, as many as R-27/73's

:P

 

Most kills online are made by AIM-120; look at all the stats. '

And the reason is not that the Eagle pilots are better than the Flankers....

[SinusoidDelta]

...And the reason is?

[Stuge]

Last time I flew on 104th server the Flankers were definitely kicking the Eagles' asses heavily! It was east vs west sarh only.

[holimoli]

...And the reason is?

 

-the F15 is easier to fly for beginners / easier to master

-120s are chaff, lag&warp resistant

-ERs are crap in the current patch.

[karambiatos]

Does pointing directly toward a IR then rolling and flaring like a madman still result in 100% miss?

[L0op8ack]

Most kills online are made by AIM-120; look at all the stats. '

And the reason is not that the Eagle pilots are better than the Flankers....

 

Most of my kills are eagles.

PvP 100 kills vs 14 death, irrespective of FM/AIM-120 cheaters, 10- death

 

I don't think AIM-120s are so deadly at this stage,

In fact I use it as enhanced SRM.

 

AIM-7M, 25 hits result 19 kills, I trust AIM-7M much much more than AIM-120s.

 

because of avionics limitations, Flanker players should never fly as lone wolf.

if you made this fatal mistake, it's your fault, not the missles.

Edited January 25, 2016 by L0op8ack

[Ironhand]

...

-120s are chaff, lag&warp resistant

...

Hmmmm.. if this is true concerning warp & lag, then it suggests that the 120's hit probability is decided at launch. Or failing that, only at specific time intervals during its flight. I wonder if, OTHOH, the other missiles are having their hit probability updated more frequently.

 

Just wondering...

[Chrinik]

ok, guys, thanks, but explain to me everything what with which I am familiar years earlier.

 

task for you: two ACMI, how would you resolve this if you have a skin Su-27?

 

you go in silence, watching RWR, watching visual, I'm looking for smoke. When your enemy shoot, doing this exploit and visually reveal a target on the trail of smoke. do not use radar, afraid you'll have 27, he will flee. Play the easy target, leave him the initiative. You have exploit in every situation. And bum... Last night I tested in 104th., six kills this way. It's funny ... zoom in and you see how Su 27 wriggling.

 

Edit: next time I will record "visual finding to missile" from my cockpit. Its easy.

 

Okay, I was confused initially what you were on about, but holy crap...that should in no way be possible.

 

Especially the macross missile massacre should not be spoofed by "Do a barrel roll!" and dumping all your chaff...

Like serriously, atleast the second barrage should have hit you considering you had no airspeed left.

 

ED needs to step up it´s efforts and fix the missles. No wonder I´m having more success in MiG-29 ET/77 loads.

[SinusoidDelta]

Hmmmm.. if this is true concerning warp & lag, then it suggests that the 120's hit probability is decided at launch. Or failing that, only at specific time intervals during its flight. I wonder if, OTHOH, the other missiles are having their hit probability updated more frequently.

 

Just wondering...

 

 

It's not true. I have tacviews showing they are not warp resistant. I can post them if needed.

 

I'm not able to watch the acmi currently. Could someone explain what exactly the issue is here?

[Ironhand]

It's not true. I have tacviews showing they are not warp resistant. I can post them if needed...

No need to post them. It was just that, if true, it suggested a very different approach to 120 modeling compared to other missiles.

[winchesterdelta1]

What is the exploit? Flying with radar off and try to find your targets visual? Especially looking for missile trails? Isn't that a valid normal tactic?

 

Or is the exploit to keep beaming into the missile on high speed because you know the ER's are super crap and they going to miss anyway.

If it's the last i do agree it seems like a exploit. And i do use it as well. But did i know it is a exploit? No i don't... and not long ago i did not have any clue on what real tactics are for every situation or how the missiles should behave in real life. So i'm just playing with what the game has given me. Most of us are no fighter pilots or have knowledge on how the missile should behave and have detailed knowledge on how real life pilots defeat missiles so they have no clue what is exploit or not. They just figured out you can defeat x missile with x maneuver. The only thing to blame here is the missile behavior.. But we have post full with that discussion. And we all agree ER's suck.

[Ironhand]

... F-15 driver... starts dumping chaff like a cropduster...

Other concerns aside, this is what I keep seeing in tacview after tacview. I'm sure that the modeling for the 27ER and probably a number of the other missiles involves the probability of being decoyed by chaff. Most likely the equation takes into consideration the # of "bundles" within the missile's field of view. I know that, in the limited testing I've done with the AI, chaff rejection seems reasonable. But that's not what you see online. The AI does not "spam" chaff. Humans do.

 

So, for online play, either the field of view would have to be artificially narrowed (assuming it's correct in the first place), or the rejection factor would have to be increased (or something similar), or the ability to spam chaff be removed. But, except for the latter, this would then alter the single player experience and make missiles (more or less) impervious to chaff. Unless, of course, there was separate online modeling and SP modeling.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Ironhand

[Ragnarok]

What is the exploit? Flying with radar off and try to find your targets visual? Especially looking for missile trails? Isn't that a valid normal tactic?

 

 

for defansive task, yes. For offensive intentions, NO!

 

people, not the point that is better or more realistic plane. Already gradation between pilots, complex approach (like RL) vs. simple effective approach "ekploit". If the dominant this first I love this game. If this is second dominant for fight, I do not like... I believe you, too. only if not childish to forget this game as soon as you get out another game, even simpler.

 

not the point in AIM, R-27, east-west conflict, nothing... just approach problems the interesting of resolving the complexity of variables. I do not like simplicity!

[holimoli]

No need to post them. It was just that, if true, it suggested a very different approach to 120 modeling compared to other missiles.

 

? it actually makes sense if a 120 does reaquire you after you warp&lag since you are still in the seekers fov..

I had it many times that I shot an ER and the enemy shot an 120...the server lagged and his 120 was still tracking after the lag...

[Sweep]

I bet it reacquired after the lag, but I don't think we'll know without Tacviews.

 

I've had Slammers reacquire - AND KILL - after masking behind a hill, so nothing is impossible here! :D

[holimoli]

I bet it reacquired after the lag, but I don't think we'll know without Tacviews.

 

I've had Slammers reacquire - AND KILL - after masking behind a hill, so nothing is impossible here! :D

 

yeah it most probably did...Im not saying its a bug/unfair or w/e. It just gives 120s an advantage over ERs with the current state of MP issues

[SinusoidDelta]

Other concerns aside, this is what I keep seeing in tacview after tacview. I'm sure that the modeling for the 27ER and probably a number of the other missiles involves the probability of being decoyed by chaff. Most likely the equation takes into consideration the # of "bundles" within the missile's field of view. I know that, in the limited testing I've done with the AI, chaff rejection seems reasonable. But that's not what you see online. The AI does not "spam" chaff. Humans do.

 

So, for online play, either the field of view would have to be artificially narrowed (assuming it's correct in the first place), or the rejection factor would have to be increased (or something similar), or the ability to spam chaff be removed. But, except for the latter, this would then alter the single player experience and make missiles (more or less) impervious to chaff. Unless, of course, there was separate online modeling and SP modeling.

 

and still there isn't a concise explanation of what the exploit is. Could you please explain?

 

You don't think an eagle driver is going to spam chaff IRL when the situation is life or death? They used to stuff chaff into the airbrakes of F4's and pull a circuit breaker to let out a big chaff cloud.

[Chrinik]

and still there isn't a concise explanation of what the exploit is. Could you please explain?

 

You don't think an eagle driver is going to spam chaff IRL when the situation is life or death? They used to stuff chaff into the airbrakes of F4's and pull a circuit breaker to let out a big chaff cloud.

 

The TacViews are showing two situations, first, an F-15 is perpendicular to a 4 ship of Flankers within 4km, they all launch R-73s. The Eagle pulls 11Gs INTO the missles and flies toward them and most of them pass by so close the proximity fuse should have set it off, but alas, all of them miss.

 

The second situation is against 8 Flankers in a hot situation. The Flankers all launch ERs well within parameters, and the Eagle flies a barrel roll, dumping chaff, and ends at M0.25 airspeed while still none of the missles (including another full barrage of ERs and some R-73s) connect.

None of them.

 

He was a single F-15 flying through 16+ missiles at absolutely no airspeed and none of them came close to hitting. And all he apparently did was dump CMs and wiggle a bit.

[Ironhand]

...

You don't think an eagle driver is going to spam chaff IRL when the situation is life or death?...

That's not the point. And I have no idea how many bundles per second can actually be pumped out of an F-15 IRL, anyway. The point is that, in its presence online, -27ERs become mostly worthless. To the degree that this varies from the real life missile, then it's a problem. If the missile is worthless in real life against anything except a totally clueless target, then I'm fine with it. If not, then I'm not.

 

And, BTW, it doesn't matter to me at all whether the AIM-120 is better than some other missile. I'm fine with that. We are not, nor should we be, on an even playing field if you are armed with 120s and I have 27ERs or whatever. I just have a hard time believing that any missile other than a 120C (apparently) is practically worthless in the presence of chaff. But this is only true of online play. Against the AI, this is much less of an issue from what I can see.

 

and still there isn't a concise explanation of what the exploit is. Could you please explain?

Not sure what the OP was referring to but, as presented in his tacviews (and other online tacviews I've seen), if you spam chaff almost all of the missiles (27ERs in this case) go for the chaff. All the target then has to do is perform some lazy barrel rolls to make sure he doesn't accidentally run into one.

 

Rich

[GGTharos]

The correct solution is to change the ECCM model, not to separate online and offline :) :)

 

Other concerns aside, this is what I keep seeing in tacview after tacview. I'm sure that the modeling for the 27ER and probably a number of the other missiles involves the probability of being decoyed by chaff. Most likely the equation takes into consideration the # of "bundles" within the missile's field of view. I know that, in the limited testing I've done with the AI, chaff rejection seems reasonable. But that's not what you see online. The AI does not "spam" chaff. Humans do.

 

So, for online play, either the field of view would have to be artificially narrowed (assuming it's correct in the first place), or the rejection factor would have to be increased (or something similar), or the ability to spam chaff be removed. But, except for the latter, this would then alter the single player experience and make missiles (more or less) impervious to chaff. Unless, of course, there was separate online modeling and SP modeling.

[Ironhand]

The correct solution is to change the ECCM model, not to separate online and offline :) :)

 

:) I'm fine with whatever works.

[pepin1234]

ok, guys, thanks, but explain to me everything what with which I am familiar years earlier.

 

task for you: two ACMI, how would you resolve this if you have a skin Su-27?

 

you go in silence, watching RWR, watching visual, I'm looking for smoke. When your enemy shoot, doing this exploit and visually reveal a target on the trail of smoke. do not use radar, afraid you'll have 27, he will flee. Play the easy target, leave him the initiative. You have exploit in every situation. And bum... Last night I tested in 104th., six kills this way. It's funny ... zoom in and you see how Su 27 wriggling.

 

Edit: next time I will record "visual finding to missile" from my cockpit. Its easy.

 

I have experience this using Mig-21. As the 21 is most a visual detection tactic you can notice this kind of situation more often.

 

Something is not going in the realistic way when we talking about a real visual detection. For example.

 

When I fight with 21 I detect my target visual at 45 km WTH is that! Then happen something weird, when they come into 25 km they get disappear intermittently. Also when they are at only 15 km and get higher the bandit get disappear for a while when is almost WVR combat.

 

I mean is nothing to do with cheating. After 1.5 I don't feel good with the way of visualization the targets.

Edited January 25, 2016 by pepin1234

[holimoli]

... But this is only true of online play. Against the AI, this is much less of an issue from what I can see.

....

Rich

 

Rly, I experienced quite the opposite. Most of the time when i practice against AI they do some left/right turns pop some chaffs and my misslie is defeated...And im pretty much shooting in perfect conditions. Look up, 15-20km...It's pretty much the same for me except missing the lag and warp.

[Johnny Dioxin]

Haven't the AI always been amazingly brilliant at defeating missiles? At least, in my experience - even their helicopters have an amazing ability to simply hop out of the way.