No one escapes in front of the Russian aircraft

[ttaylor0024]

Those servers are closer to "realism" but doesn't even come close to employing real tactics/flying you are trying to have.

 

And no that is not fine. But they are worked on right? And some have been fixed like the barrel roll for AIM-120? Right now we just have to dale with the silliness and make the best f it till changes are made.. And than we start learning all over again to adapt to those changes. I think it has been a fine ride like this. But off course i hope they fix everything tomorrow.

 

Correct, it will take time to update. Like I mentioned before, I'd go look for reputable sources on the details you want looked at and submit them to ED. Not only would it help speed up the fixes but you'd learn as well.

 

There are no servers that replicate what i like. What i like are big maps on a persistent server with campaigns lasting two weeks or more. Where i can create and plan my flight in game. And fly with people like you fighting other people in a campaign that has meaning. That AWACS i protected yesterday can be used today again... That kind of games. I came to Flanker 2.0 hoping for that kind of game. And now i'm just waiting......... and waiting and hoping.

 

Hopefully someday a dynamic campaign like Falcon can come along, because it'd be a huge hit

[Sweep]

Try blue flag, its basically everything you're asking for.

[winchesterdelta1]

Try blue flag, its basically everything you're asking for.

 

I will try that for sure. But it still has no ground war and sophisticated air defense networks with infrastructure targets i need to destroy to make my war more easy. And i will still be dodging ER's with spam chaff and high G turns.

[*Rage*]

It wont be fixed until the issue is identified, flagged up, and monitored. Which is the point of this thread.

[Sweep]

I thought there was no point to this thread?

[*Rage*]

Not if youre happy spamraaming and spamchaffing away:) Then this thread is very worrying:)

[Sweep]

I mean that this seems like a general whine thread and not for anything specific.

 

But anyway, I'll get back to Digital Chaffing Simulator. :megalol:

[*Rage*]

Digital Complaining Simulator:)

[Cik]

maybe someday my ER will be a BVR missile

 

someday

[Frostie]

Well, I agree with most of what you say[can this truly be that we are on the same page for once?] How ever I don't think of DCS as a SIM when we are talking about FC3 and Multiplayer.. The reason for this is simple it doesn't take 15 minutes to get up into the air. I can spawn in to an f15 and or su27 and be airborne with full arms in as little as 60 seconds. or less if the server pre-arms the aircraft. Flaming cliffs is a game with sim added in as a bonus.

While I for one would rather fly a full system f15c but when you look at the whole picture in terms of potential sales for ED, the "gamey" flaming cliffs sells more then a full system that has a STEEP learning curve. Given that, the unrealistic tactics will always be there no matter since truly this is a game over it being a simulator.

 

As I parenthesized I agree with you that there are things that are absurd. how ever I just am looking at the much larger picture that the few of us who want more realism will unfortunately hurt over all sales and most likely wont get it. I'd be all up for getting full study f15c's and su27s then breaking fc3 off into its own relms leaving the study aircraft [a10c,f15c,su27,mig21,m2k,ect] to fight each other.

 

What points you in the direction that an FC level F-15 sells better than what a fully modeled version would, there is nothing to base such comparison.

 

As for your reference to getting airbourne not taking 15 mins that has nothing to do with air combat which is what is simulated in FC and the discussion here. The point being you can take a full fidelity SU27, stick missiles and chaff on it and you'll get exactly the same results we're seeing now don't you think.

There is no magic conversion to realistic tactics brought on by a clickable cockpit.

[pr1malr8ge]

What points you in the direction that an FC level F-15 sells better than what a fully modeled version would, there is nothing to base such comparison.

 

As for your reference to getting airbourne not taking 15 mins that has nothing to do with air combat which is what is simulated in FC and the discussion here. The point being you can take a full fidelity SU27, stick missiles and chaff on it and you'll get exactly the same results we're seeing now don't you think.

There is no magic conversion to realistic tactics brought on by a clickable cockpit.

 

 

I see what you're getting at Frostie. The issue is that you're on the same side most of us are on. Thinking that why wouldn't some one want the clickable cockpit.. Well what I can tell you is this; I have tried several times to get friends whom I game with to get into DCS they will not touch the a10c with a 10ft stick. They as are 90+% of all gamers NOT INTRESTED in learning/memorizing all the systems in a study level sim. Spending hundreds of hours learning systems, buttons, setting up a HOTAS, etc etc is not in the deck of cards for the majority of those who game. Simmers represent less then 1% of all gamers. Flaming Cliffs level aircraft is alot easier and even then it is still above the vast majority of gamers. This is simply due to the fact that it also requires skills not present in today's BoxStore games. So with that, those who are willing to learn the systems shouldn't they be rewarded with playing against those who care about being Simicly correct vs having to play against those who only care about pressing a few buttons and SPAMMING THE SKYS WITH AMRAMS OR ETs?

 

but yes you're right adding a Study level aircraft to the mix wont change the basic level of tactics. but it will cause a rift when some yahoo that was shot down by a study level sim piloting an f15c and that guy is back in the air in 60 seconds spamming 8 amrams, rinse repeat. Take for example some lone fc3 driver gets into the Hawgs A/o and gets an aim9 in the face. Then that fc3 driver in just a few minutes is back in the air and in short order is back in the Hawgs A/o and clubs the hawg. That hawg driver has every right to be pissed because he earned the right to be there when the fc3 driver just pressed a few buttons and bam right back in the air vs the hawg that had to go through full systems start up etc etc.

 

Maybe it's me but personaly when im in the eagle I don't go looking for Study level aircraft, if I do come across them I may shoot one or 2 but I wont stick around. Maybe it's just a code of honor not sure. How ever if I ever get a Study level f15 or f18 it will be fair game to me to club down some hawgs and stay in the area.

Edited January 27, 2016 by pr1malr8ge

[winchesterdelta1]

I do the same you describe for FC3 when flying the mirage. Starting up modern planes is done pretty easy.

But good to know you won't shoot me down or hang around when i'm flying my full system fidelity mirage.

[OnlyforDCS]

maybe someday my ER will be a BVR missile

 

someday

 

:megalol:

[Bidartarra]

 

 

 

Hopefully someday a dynamic campaign like Falcon can come along, because it'd be a huge hit

One of the huge plus of Falcon.

*Cough* and the BVR *cough*

[Tucano_uy]

The problem with DCS and spamming chaff is the way the sim deals with it, a dice roll compared to how effective chaff is set. If say you dump 6 bundles in quick succession then you have multiplied the chance of spoofing the missile by 6, if the effectiveness of chaff is high then this can mean the missile spoofed 9 out of 10 attempts (or worse) with that burst of 6, where as if chaff was set less effective this may make say a 5 out 10 and to achieve that 9 out of 10 would then require considerably more to hit the better ratio. Right now it doesn't take a great deal of effort to trash that missile because the effectiveness is so overpowering.

 

It's a game mechanic that is trying to replicate the unknown, what should be at the fore front of ED is how to make this sim about BVR and less about spamming chaff to the x.

 

Maybe the dice should be rolled against the "presence of chaff" around the defending aircraft and not the "amount of chaff released".

 

I am no expert but I have a gut feel that in real life, having, let's say, 15 bundles of chaff in a certain piece of airspace should not be 15 times more effective than having 1. Today in game it is.

 

Somebody with more knowledge about radar technology and physics may answer that, even without knowing the intricacies of how chaff work.

[GGTharos]

Your gut feeling is wrong.

 

There is an upper bound on chaff effectiveness and it is expressed in RCS.

 

The number of bundles can matter, but literature only mentions a small number of bundles usually (as low as 4) and they are presented to be effective.

 

Maybe the dice should be rolled against the "presence of chaff" around the defending aircraft and not the "amount of chaff released".

 

I am no expert but I have a gut feel that in real life, having, let's say, 15 bundles of chaff in a certain piece of airspace should not be 15 times more effective than having 1. Today in game it is.

 

Somebody with more knowledge about radar technology and physics may answer that, even without knowing the intricacies of how chaff work.

[Tucano_uy]

Sure 4 must be better than 1, and 25 better than one, but is 25 actually 25 times better than one? If popping whatever number of chaff, reduces the pk of a salvo of missiles to 0, then what's the point of intercepting an aircraft and firing several very expensive missiles that can be spoofed easily with what I suppose is a very cheap countermeasure? Just stay home and don't even bother. Do pilots IRL go fighting knowing their missiles have absolutely no chance?

 

As I said, I am no specialist, but I work with radars and they're pretty good at filtering what you don't want to see.

[*Rage*]

This is precisely the point. No one is saying chaff should be entirely ineffective. Only that in the game right now there is no ceiling to its effectiveness. If you dump enough chaff the missile will miss under almost any circumstances. That cant be right.

 

If any SARH missile could be wasted merely by the presence of enough chaff than it would be pointless carrying them.

[ttaylor0024]

This is precisely the point. No one is saying chaff should be entirely ineffective. Only that in the game right now there is no ceiling to its effectiveness. If you dump enough chaff the missile will miss under almost any circumstances. That cant be right.

 

If any SARH missile could be wasted merely by the presence of enough chaff than it would be pointless carrying them.

 

I wouldn't think there'd be a ceiling to effectiveness IRL either. The more chaff in the air the higher the chance the beam could be reflected on any piece of foil. Is it a linear increase in probability per chaff bundle? Absolutely not. I do not know exactly how it's modeled in game, but I have a hunch that it IS linear, in which case it should be changed. I'm sure GGTharos can comment on this part better than I. The first bundle deployed should be a baseline effectiveness, with each bundle subsequently a lowered effectiveness (such as 90% the effectiveness of the bundle released before). That way the more you release, the greater the probability of it missing, however it's not so crazy that you're not punished for releasing half your chaff on one engagement.

[SinusoidDelta]

The constraint is how much chaff you can carry. Your punishment is running out of it. Deployed chaff rapidly expands into a large cloud with an RCS much larger than a fighter jet.

[Sweep]

If any SARH missile could be wasted merely by the presence of enough chaff than it would be pointless carrying them.

 

Why do you think everyone is trying to get ARH AAMs? For lulz? So the MIC can make more money? Or maybe because SARH is so 70s?

 

You know, if it wasn't your missile being susceptible to chaff it'd be your radar...What we have here kinda represents reality, not perfectly, but it gets the feeling right-ish.

[*Rage*]

What we have here kinda represents reality, not perfectly, but it gets the feeling right-ish.

 

No it doesnt really. Also the R27 and Aim7M/P are still operational with many air forces (including navy F14s till they were shelved) and chaff has been around for a long time.

 

I wouldn't think there'd be a ceiling to effectiveness IRL either. The more chaff in the air the higher the chance the beam could be reflected on any piece of foil. Is it a linear increase in probability per chaff bundle? Absolutely not. I do not know exactly how it's modeled in game, but I have a hunch that it IS linear, in which case it should be changed. I'm sure GGTharos can comment on this part better than I. The first bundle deployed should be a baseline effectiveness, with each bundle subsequently a lowered effectiveness (such as 90% the effectiveness of the bundle released before). That way the more you release, the greater the probability of it missing, however it's not so crazy that you're not punished for releasing half your chaff on one engagement.

 

Perhaps. We'll have to see what the Devs come up with ultimately.

Edited January 27, 2016 by ///Rage

[GGTharos]

... which is exactly why countermeasures are carried for defense, right?

 

As I said, I am no specialist, but I work with radars and they're pretty good at filtering what you don't want to see.

[GGTharos]

It isn't linear. Most probability stuff isn't.

 

I wouldn't think there'd be a ceiling to effectiveness IRL either. The more chaff in the air the higher the chance the beam could be reflected on any piece of foil. Is it a linear increase in probability per chaff bundle? Absolutely not. I do not know exactly how it's modeled in game, but I have a hunch that it IS linear, in which case it should be changed. I'm sure GGTharos can comment on this part better than I. The first bundle deployed should be a baseline effectiveness, with each bundle subsequently a lowered effectiveness (such as 90% the effectiveness of the bundle released before). That way the more you release, the greater the probability of it missing, however it's not so crazy that you're not punished for releasing half your chaff on one engagement.

[Frostie]

Why do you think everyone is trying to get ARH AAMs? For lulz? So the MIC can make more money? Or maybe because SARH is so 70s?

 

Surely that is obvious given the benefit from pitbull and multi target engagements they give.

 

ARH missiles also have a radar which suffers chaff, it is only a matter of latest radar eccm which benefits a 120C over an older non updated radar set in that regard, to what degree is undebatable for mere mortals.